The Case 

A FAR REACHING 
SCANDAL UNCOVERED 



By EMILE N. CORNAY 
Former Chief Clerk U, S. Mint 
New Orleans, La* 


m 




y 












©CI,A2!)7084 




CIVIL-SERVICE PROSTITUTED 


SILENT WITNESS 

THE RECORD AS MADE UP ON INVESTIGATION BY 
THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 


SIDE GLANCE OF A REVENUE SYSTEM THE fOINT FABRIC 
OF FEDERAL OFFICIALS AND REFEREES 
OF THE ADMINISTRATION 


FACTS TOUCHING A COALITION OF POLITICS 
AND PUBLIC SERVICE 


MACHINERY OF LAW MOTIONLESS FOR TEN MONTHS 
MOVES IN THE SHADOW OF 
CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY 


Price, 35 Cents, 


Copyright 1911. 

By EMILE N. CORN AY 






The rights of an individual {per se) is a matter of little conse¬ 
quence; hut when a toleration of violence to them, through abuse of 
power, raises doubts as to the safety of a multitude, similarly 
situated, individuality is swallowed up by the broader question of 
Public Policy. 


Nothing of Government worth preserving has advanced with¬ 
out free and fearless discussion. The acts of public officials, 
whether of commission or omission, in either high or low stations, 
are at all times subject to inspection; and a dispassionate criti¬ 
cism of short-comings, on strict lines of facts, is conducive to 
healthy conditions. 

This publication furnishes a chapter on a subject close to the 
public mind. It deals with a record indicating something out 
of joint, suggestive that Civil-Service needs a Doctor. 

It ought to be read by every employee of the Government, for 
it tells of things of vital individual concern. 

It ought to be read by members of the Civil-Service Reform 
League; as it furnishes a strong argument for the cause of exis¬ 
tence of that association. 

It furnishes good reading for members of Congress, as it may 
suggest the need of legislation to make it dangerous in the future 
for political managers to levy tribute on the salaries of Govern¬ 
ment employees. No less can it be read with profit by the great 
masses, unfamiliar with what goes on in the Avhirl of politics, 
who will be informed of things they ought to know. 

SALIENT FACTS. 

Systematic violations Civil-Service laws (character of which 
calls for summary dismissal from office.) 

The referee of the administration an active force of the system. 

Charges of a levy on the salaries of Government employees 
through a political organization, filed with Civil-Servic^ Com¬ 
mission July 22nd, 1910. 

Charges investigated September 1910. 

Six months’ correspondence with authorities asking for a 
decision without results. 

Congressional Committee on Reform in Civil-Service asked 
to make inquiries. May 18th 1911. 

Member of Committee calls for record (which was not forth¬ 
coming) May 27th. 

Reported request for resignation of two Federal Officials June 
25th. 


3 


Referee thinks law violations can be ‘'amicably adjusted/’ 

Referee intercedes—Hitchcock reported as “handling the 
case”—announcement July loth resignations to be effective in 
seventy days. 

The referee responsible for system, holds his influence. 

Deductions—belong to the public. 

PREFACE. 

The responsibility of power, which imposes no higher obliga¬ 
tion than a positive, impartial, and unwavering administration 
of laws, can no more be shifted, than can the consequences of in¬ 
different, or ill directed exercise of authority be avoided; neither 
can a game of battledoor and shuttlecock square delinquencies 
in the discharge of official responsibilities. Questions touching 
administration of laws, no less than questions of law violations, 
(being matters of Public Concern), are legitimate subjects for 
discussion, without reference as to the official station affected. 

A matter affecting Civil Service investigated at New Orleans 
about a year ago, is one of these legitimate subjects of discussion, 
and merits notice, both by reason of the character of law violations 
involved, and no less on account of its extraordinary course 
through the Government machinery; the slow progress of which 
would indicate undue slipping of cogs. 

An unvarnished account of this long drawn and uneven contest 
between right and might (during the course of which a chapter 
on Civil-Service law enforcement, not at all flattering, or de¬ 
sirable as a monument to the system, has been made up) is 
due the Public. 

An experience covering a period of many months’ diligent ef¬ 
forts to cause the application of plain laws, to a plain state of 
facts, furnishes a story replete with incidents tending to shake 
confidence in the integrity of Government investigations; dis¬ 
closing a bent of resistance to the sway of law;—-which may be a 
revelation to the average Citizen unfamiliar with the possible 
transformations of Civil-Service. The prosecution of a com¬ 
plaint, where the course of the law seems to have been intercepted 
to the extent of halting proceedings for nearly a year, is worth 


4 


eciting, both for the lesson it carries, as well as for the possible 
healthy effect resulting from a discussion of conditions, tending 
to paralyze, if not destroy, the force of an institution established 
for better purposes than a foot-ball for political manipulations;— 
and this recital is worth reading for its side lights on Government 
investigations, and no less instructive as a fair illustration of the 
labor, persistence, and annoyances involved in the onerous under¬ 
taking to wring Judgments in cases of Civil-Service offences, 
when Public-Service and politics wallow in the same trough. 

A review of this matter (which has in its ramifications assumed 
proportions bordering on a Public Scandal) is not of my making, 
or responsive to my inclinations, as evidenced from the fact that 
ever}" effort was made to avoid a public over-hauling of a record, 
which would perhaps show to better advantage on the secluded 
files of the Civil-Service Commission. The correspondence re¬ 
produced herein attests, every recourse was exhausted to 
draw a decision, which would break the mysterious silence, on a 
serious complaint pending for Ten months, and it was not until 
every door was closed (as far as the constituted authorities are 
concerned) that steps were taken in other directions—a departure 
which bore effect, and infused life in a case of palpable law viola¬ 
tions, which for reasons best known to the powers, remained hung 
up without action, long enough to have been forgotten. 

Having been driven to the extremity of asking for Con¬ 
gressional inquiry as to the silence of the authorities in this ease, 
before there appeared any evidence of action, the whole subject 
matter loses its original identity, and becomes public property; 
this being but a redemption of a promise made to the President 
in a letter dated April 17, 1911, which closed as follows: 

“With this letter I will have exhausted all resources for vindi¬ 
cation at the hands of the constituted authorities, and if driven 
from this Forum, on account of a denial of such a hearing as is 
legitimately due,—the responsibility for such public discussion 
as may be necessary for a square settlement, must rest where it 
properly belongs. 

I fully appreciate the uneven odds against an individual in a 
case of this kind, especially when in the plain walks of life, but I 
hold to the faith that right and the truth overbalance in the end 


all other forces, and on the strength of this conviction I have 
marked my course from the inception of this controversy, with 
the resolute purpose not to relinquish until the ‘'system” degrad¬ 
ing to public service, which I attacked, is destroyed, or at least 
laid bare to public view. I now submit the matter.” 

The doors having been closed on this final appeal—a conclu¬ 
sion justified from the fact it had been ignored—not even accord¬ 
ed an acknowledgement of receipt, a discussion out of Court 
was invited, and since that stage has been reached a full account, 
shorn of every thing, save the naked facts, as made up by the 
record, belongs to the public. 

In here laying bare the facts connected with a brazen Jugglery 
of laws—to rid the Government service of an employee, who had 
violated no regulations, except it be that laid down by 
political authorities; together with the facts, pointing to wanton 
and defiant trifling with statutory provisions governing Civil- 
Service, carried on by Government officials in bold consort 
with a political organization; I am animated by no spirit of 
animosity towards the offenders, or disrespect for the authori¬ 
ties. I am here making no charges, nor assailing individuals. 
I am dealing with a record as made up by due process, and aim 
solely to call attention to what appears a miscarriage of Jus¬ 
tice; and above all, to expose an intolerable system, which 
needs be destroyed, root and branch, if Civil Service is to be 
something more than a myth. 

The fact that this case (which was permitted to drag through 
nearly a quarter of a term of the present administration, before 
noticed) involves more than ordinary infraction of regulations. 
The fact that it imports something more serious than spasmodic 
law violations on the responsibilities of individual officials (in 
that the offences were committed to meet requirements of a polit¬ 
ical organization,) places it perhaps in a class of its own, and if 
the light here thrown on the subject leads to an agitation result¬ 
ing in enactments prescribing such penalties as to render a dupli¬ 
cation of the case a dangerous expedient, Civil-Service will 
have moved a step forward. 

In going over this matter I am hardly called upon to point out 
short-comings; or fix the responsibility for conditions not cal- 


6 


culated to excite admiration. No space need be wasted on crimi¬ 
nations or speculations on motives, for the plain truth, and force¬ 
ful facts, as borne in the record, carry their own indictments, and 
after absorbing the story of the peculiar and questionable ways 
of Civil-Service as unfolded (every syllable of which I mean to 
guard with the same scrupulous care and exact regard for truth 
as if made before a court of Justice; inviting denial from any quar¬ 
ter, provided such denials are risked under oath), each reader 
can answer for himself the questions the state of facts suggests— 
whether Civil-Service has in this instance been squarely admin¬ 
istered, and whether or not The President has measured up to 
the requirements of the occasion? 


t. 


k 


ii’ 




» 



V 




4 

0 t 





I fi 


, '’’l 

* ^ ^ 

k 


( 


f 

I 




*» , 







» 


» 




». » 


■f« 


* w 


i 




IV i 

s tM 

* ^ 

»/.il 

y f 

I r 


/ 


1 


CHAPTER L 


The charges of Civil-Service law violations filed with the 
Civil-Service Commission July 22nd. 1910 bore two counts. 
One related specifically to an illegal removal from office, the 
other to general and continued law violations on the part of Fede¬ 
ral Officials at New Orleans. The first concerns the individual 
victim, and incidentally Government employees, whose tenure 
is unsafe when superiors in authority are permitted to Juggle 
with Civil-Service in an unlawful pursuit for the scalp of a sub¬ 
ordinate. The second concerns not only employees of the Gov¬ 
ernment but the Country at large, as it touches public morals, 
and affects the standard of public service. 

In detailing what these complaints are, and what resulted from 
an investigation, the record as made up will be adhered to, and 
I mean to stand corrected by that record in any over-drawn state¬ 
ment. Such facts as may be incidentally referred to (possi¬ 
bly not of record) will be from a personal knowledge, holding 
myself ready to join in a request from any one concerned, for a 
Congressional investigation of the whole subject matter to test 
their verity; provided there be no star-chamber proceedings, and 
there be assurances the commodity known as ^‘White Wash^' 
which has so frequently and artistically disfigured Government 
inquisitions, will be eliminated. 

The Civil-Service system being the safe guard to efficient pub¬ 
ic service lies close to the popular mind. The average citizen 
is familiar with what the term is intended to convey—appreciates 
the fact the system was instituted for more useful purposes than 
a mere term for politicians to conjure with, or furnish a theme for 
Presidential messages; and Public opinion has at no time waver¬ 
ed in its estimate of a system designed for the elevation of the 
standard of the individual employee of the Government, by ab¬ 
solving him (in his capacity of a public servant) from any obliga¬ 
tion, other than that due the Government—honest, intelligent, 
and faithful service; and the people generally understand, before 


9 


the merit system can yield substantial results, or even approach 
its purpose, something more than mere enactments, and printed 
regulations (sometimes more conspicuous in cold type than in 
practical execution) are needed—that the strong arm of rigid 
law enforcement must stand behind the intent, otherwise its 
object must fail, and divorcement of politics from public service 
become a dream. While all of this is generally understood—few 
perhaps, realize the demoralizing influences working counter. 
How many (to whom the system at a distance appears as a 
stone-wall against political invasion) have had opportunity to 
measure at close range actual results? how many, other than those 
who in the whirl of politics have been thrown in close contact, 
know to what extent the shadow rather than the substance is 
meted by forces controlling? On this point the exhibition of 
supreme contempt for Civil-Service afforded by New Orleans 
Federal Officials and their allied political advisers, furnishes a 
chapter where even the shadow had departed. A review of this 
instance of paralyzed Civil-Service (or perhaps a more appropri¬ 
ate term would be crucified), (through the very agency the 
system was designed to exclude from influence on public service) 
supplies the missing link to reduce the ^‘Merit System’^ to the 
level of a mockery. The full meaning of the preceeding remarks 
will appear clearer as the facts connected with the “Louisiana 
Code’’ of “Reverence for Civil-Service’^ develop. 

Human experience teaches men become emboldened in the 
exercise of power in just such degree, as the over-riding of the 
rights of others are tolerated; and multiplied abuses lead on to 
crossing forbidden lines—a limit reached when it was discov¬ 
ered that the United States Mint at New Orleans needed an 
“acting” Chief Clerk instead of a Chief Clerk—an event from 
which dates a declaration of war on the pernicious system of 
levying a tax on the salary of Government employees. 

Having been Railroaded out of the Government Service (I 
believe that is the proper term in the absence of proceedings re¬ 
quired by law) by a process of Jugglery which would do credit 
to a master of that profession (which will be better understood 
after reading complaint), I filed the following protest and 
charges with the Civil-Service Commission— 


10 


New Orleans, La., July 22nd, 1910. 

To Civil Service Commission, 

Washington, 

D.C. 

Sirs :— 

I beg to submit for your consideration and action, the matter 
of my separation from the Mint and Assay service, and invoke 
the law applicable. 

In presenting this complaint, surrounded as it is by collateral 
incidents not usually attendant upon removals from oJSice, it 
will be necessary, in order that your body be sufficiently in¬ 
formed, to review facts at some length, and travel somewhat 
outside the case. 

I was appointed Chief-Clerk at the U. S. Mint, New Orleans, 
March 3rd 1903. A position covered by Civil Service laws, being 
classified in schedule C. subdivision I. Regulations governing 
“Mints and Assay Service.^^ In that capacity I served (with a 
clean record) until July 15th, 1910, on which date I was indef¬ 
initely furloughed (which is tantamount to a removal), on a 
pretext which will not bear the light of an investigation. My 
separation from the Service which the Superintendent seeks to 
justify on the plea of a reduction of force and reorganization, I 
claim was attained in violation of laws instituted for the pro¬ 
tection of Government employees against undue use or abuse of 
the appointive power. I claim my removal was neither justified 
by conditions, or effected to the end of promoting the Service. 
That the question of economy set up in defence was a secondary 
consideration, a mere incident furnishing a pretext for an illegal 
act, is so palpable as to need but scant review to carry conviction. 

Coinage operations at the New Orleans Mint having been sus¬ 
pended, and the Superintendent instructed to reduce the force 
to conform to the requirements of an Assay office; brought the 
head of this institution face to face with a situation where a choice 
between obedience to Civil Service laws, or yielding to personal 
preferences, or other infiuences was forced. That the latter con¬ 
sideration governed, is made evident from facts and incidents 
surrounding. 


11 


Some time ago, the Superintendent received instructions from 
the Mint Bureau to indefinitely furlough the Ass’t Coiner, Ass^t 
Melter and Refiner and Ass’t Cashier, whose services were no 
longer required on account of the suspension of the Coinage. 

It is reasonable to conclude these specific instructions as to the 
three positions named, (which under changed conditions had no 
cause for existence) would have been carried out by an appoint¬ 
ing power, unless there were axes to grind. 

This situation brought the Superintendent to a conference with 
the Director of Mint. 

Failing in this effort to secure an allotment of coinage (which 
would have removed the necessity for reducing the force), and 
being instructed to reduce same to conform to the requirements 
of an Assay Office, his energies were then directed to plan some 
line of reduction, agreeable to individual caprices, regardless 
whether or not it squared with the law. 

Therefore, instead of an outright abolishment of position de¬ 
funct by changed conditions, and furlough of the incumbents, 
this Superintendent evolved a scheme of re-organization (I be¬ 
lieve he so called it) by means of which persons thrown out of 
employment by inevitable operation of conditions, were provided 
for at the expense of others who had by efficient service earned 
equal consideration. 

In this process of shifting position, the AssT Cashier (whose 
service in that capacity was no longer required) was assigned to 
the duties of Chief Clerk and Book-keeper combined, at a salary 
of $800.00 per annum less than the compensation attached to 
that position. 

My contention as to the legality of this action, or its justifica¬ 
tion under existing conditions, are fully covered in a protest di¬ 
rected to the ex-Director of Mint, Mr. A. Piatt Andrews, which 
is here reproduced, and made a part of this appeal. 


12 


New Orleans, La., July 2nd, 1910. 
Hon. a. Piatt Andrews, 

Ass’t Secretary of the Treasury, 

Washington, D. C. 

Sir:— 

In reference to the proposed reduction of force at the New 
Orleans Mint, as submitted by the Superintendent, for yours 
approval, I beg to review this recommendation as far as it effect 
the Chief Clerk; and ask for such relief as the equities of the case 
may claim. The position of Chief Clerk in the Mint and Assay 
Office, being a fixed position (so designated by statue) and specifi¬ 
cally provided for by appropriation of Congress, would appear 
to be exempt from being affected by a reduction of force necessi¬ 
tated by a suspension of coinage; it would at least appear to sub¬ 
stitute an incumbent to that position for consideration of having 
the work performed at a lesser salary, or to satisfy individual 
preference, is unwarranted by law, and violative of regulations 
governing the conduct of Mint and Assay Service. 

Sec:—3504. R. S: provides:—The “Superintendent shall ap¬ 
point all Assistants, and Clerks, one of whom shall be designated 
as “Chief Clerk,” etc. Sec:—3502:—R. S. Says: “In case 
of the temporary absence of the Superintendent the Chief Clerk 
shall act in his place.” Sec. 3499—R. S. Provides:—“There 
shall be allowed to the assistants and Clerks of the several Mints 
such annual salaries as the Director of Mint may, with the 
probation of the Secretary of the Treasury determine.” 

This latter provision has been complied with, and the late 
appropriation act: No. 213 H. R. 22643—under heading “Mints 
and Assay Offices, reads—“New Orleans Mint, for Superintend- 
dent, $3500.00, Chief Clerk and Cashier $2000.00 each etc.” 

Thus it appears the Chief Clerk is a position in the Mint and 
Assay Service, as at present constituted, fixed by Statue, and for 
that position a specific appropriation has been made for the fiscal 
year 1911. This being the case, it would appear an appointing 
power is not warranted to substitute a Chief Clerk by another 
employee whose services has been dispensed with in other direc¬ 
tions, to the end of reducing expenses. That the recourse for 
economy in that direction would lie in a reduced compensation 


13 


in future appropriations. This position which by statutory pro¬ 
visions carries with it the duties of ‘‘Acting Superintendent/' (in 
the absence of the Superintendent) with a fixed salary, specifi¬ 
cally provided for, it appears would not be subject to a change 
incident to a general shift of force, either as to salary or as to the 
personnel (except for cause). 

Passing to the status of this position as affected by Civil Service 
we find it is covered by regulations governing “Mint and Assay 
Service." Classified in schedule C. subdivision I. 

As to the facts:— 

The Superintendent verbally notified me that I would be in¬ 
definitely furloughed on the 15th of July (which is equivalent to 
a removal) and my place would be filled by the former assistant 
cashier, whose service in that capacity would be dispensed with; 
he stated he had consolidated the positions of Chief Clerk and 
Bookkeeper, and by this shift both places would be filled at a 
salary of $1200.00 per annum. He volunteered to express his 
appreciation of the painstaking and efficient service I had ren¬ 
dered, during a tenure of more than seven years, and professed 
to regret my separation from the service, which he claimed was 
inevitably forced by reason of the necessity of dismissing the 
higher salaried employees, to meet required reduction of ex¬ 
penses. (This is mentioned to show no cause was attached to 
his action). 

In view of the foregoing brief recital of this case, I submit: 

1st: The position of Chief Clerk being a statutory provision 
in Mint and Assay Service (as now organized) and the incumbent 
being designated by law as the Acting Superintendent, in the 
absence of the official head,he is not subject to removal for the pur¬ 
pose of reducing expenses, or to accommodate another employee 
dispensed with in other directions. 

2nd: The mere fact that it is proposed to designate another 
to replace the Chief Clerk, is evidence that his services are neces¬ 
sary, and is a self evident fact that there remain functions for 
such an official. 

3rd: If there remain duties for a Chief Clerk, there is no 
warrant to assign another to his work, or dismiss him except for 
cause. 


14 


4th: When the services of an employee are dispensed with in 
one capacity (where there may be a surplusage offeree), the ap¬ 
pointing power is not warranted in removing one occupying a 
position, for which there may be cause for existence, in order to 
provide for the one thus thrown out of employment. 

5th: To assign another to a position carrying certain duties 
which are unchangeable, and change its title, is a mere subter¬ 
fuge, a species of jugglery reprobated by law, violative of both 
the spirit and letter of Civil Service regulations. 

Finally I submit: In this matter the Superintendent has 
usurped authority and on the whole, I have been unfairly and 
illegally dealt with. I have occupied this position formore than 
seven years; during this period I have performed my duties in 
such a manner as to have escaped a reprimand to this date for 
any delinquency. Though allowed thirty days’ leave annually 
with pay, I have had one leave in seven years. I have been in¬ 
trusted with the entire active management of the affairs of this 
institution, and the accounts rendered for these responsibilities 
have brought no complaint from any quarter.. The annual set¬ 
tlements and records at the Mint Bureau speak for themselves 
as to the manner in which the business has been conducted. The 
Superintendent himself attests that I have rendered efficient 
service, as evidenced by his monthly reports on the conduct and 
efficiency of employees under his control, which are on file at 
Mint Bureau. If I have thus discharged my obligations to the 
Government, I am at least entitled to my day ‘Tn Court.” This 
hearing I ask through this protest. 

I am satisfied when you asked for a reduction of force, you were 
guided by worthy motives, that you wanted a reduction with a 
sole view of economy, and on legitimate lines, regardless of where 
the ‘^chips fell,” and I feel equally confident you will not coun¬ 
tenance any action bearing the earmarks of favoritism or dis¬ 
crimination. I ask that you consider this case in all its bearings; 
the facts are before you; from them you may draw youi own de¬ 
ductions. If their weight show my proposed separation from the 
service is not warranted by law, or equity, nor justified by con¬ 
ditions here existing, I ask that you cause the Acting Director of 
Mint to withhold his approval of the Superintendent’s recom¬ 
mendation. 


15 


Though this position is a small one, a principle is involved of 
much larger proportions, and my removal without cause would 
be an unfitting compensation for the conscientious service I have 
rendered the Government. 

I have no influence, political or otherwise, to summon to urge 
my claim. I am content to rest them on their merits, and rely 
on your sense of justice and fair play to accord my dues in the 
premises. 

I address you for reason you are the virtual head of the Bureau, 
as I understand your successor has not yet qualified. 

Respectfully submitted, 

E. N. CORNAY. 

To the "oregoing protest the Asst’ Secretary of the Treasury, 
replied as follows (under date of July 5th). 

Mr. E. N. Cornay, 

Chief Clerk, U. S. Mint, 

' N. 0. 

Sir:— 

I have your letter of the second inst. and regret that conditions 
are such that it has been necessary to approve the furlough of so 
many employees in the Mint at New Orleans. With the retention 
of the cashier and the consolidation in other positions it does not 
seem clear that the position of Chief Clerk is required and while 
the estimates provide for this position, conditions have so changed 
that I think we shall be able to drop it for the present. If how¬ 
ever, a vacancy should arise to which you are eligible, your length 
of service would entitle you to consideration, and under the fur¬ 
lough system your eligibility continues for three years from July 
fifteenth, 1910. 

Respectfully, 

A. PIATT ANDREW 

Ass’t Secretary. 

In considering the above reply of Mr. Andrews, I call attention 
to the fact, notwithstanding my protest was overruled, in con¬ 
tradiction of the view expressed by Mr. Andrews, ‘Tt does not 
seem clear the position of Chief Clerk is required” stand the in- 


16 


structions later conveyed to the Superintendent by the Acting 
Director of Mint, Mr. R. E. Preston. That my main conten¬ 
tion has been inadvertently sustained by this Official, is shown 
by a letter directed to the Superintendent from which I will quote 
later. 

Let it be borne in mind that the main point of my protest was 
the contention: ‘‘The Chief Clerk being a position created by 
statute, and by statute designated as the acting Superintendent in 
the absence of that Official, stood as a fixture in the organization 
of Mint and Assay service as at present constituted, and that the 
services of that official were necessary, and the functions of that 
position indispensable.'' In this I am sustained by Mr. R. E. 
Preston acting Director of Mint, who says in a letter addressed 
to the Superintendent approving the changes made (letter 
dated June 30th). 

“As under the law (Sec. 3502 R. S.) in case of the tempo¬ 
rary absence of the Superintendent the Chief Clerk shall act 
in this place, it would appear necessary for you to inform this 
Bureau your choice for Acting Chief Clerk in your absence and 
I wish you would have this done, upon receipt of this letter." 
What an admission! 

Here is a plain acknowledgment on the part of the Mint 
Bureau that the functions of a chief clerk are indispensable, 
yet the occupant of that office is removed by consent of that 
same authority cognizant of the fact that such removal was ef¬ 
fected on pretext than the office had outlived its usefulness. Is 
any evidence further than the inconsistency, and contradiction 
here pointed needed to annihiliate the weak pretext set up? 

By what authority is the title of an official designated by statue 
to act in the absence of a Superintendent changed; and for what 
purpose is it proposed to create a new office “Acting Chief Clerk?" 
if not for the purpose of evading a law which inhibits the removal 
of a Government employee except for legitimate cause. By 
what process of reasoning can an Acting official for an office that 
is claimed to have been abolished for want of a function, find 
cause for existence? We have known of acting officials during 
the temporary absence of an incumbent, or pending the filling of 
a vacancy—but an official to act for one out of existence, pro- 


17 


ducing the anomalous title “acting-acting Superintendent” (as 
the title of chief clerk is Acting Superintendent) belongs to the 
realms of Civil Service law jugglers. 

You may take the position that the point touching the func¬ 
tions of the office in question, so strongly emphasized is not a 
proper matter for adjudication by your body. This question 
“per-se’’ may be out of your jurisdiction, yet surrounding this 
point are acts having a direct bearing on the merits of the case, 
as tending to show improper motives on the part of the removing 
power, which need to be considered in your investigation as to 
whether there has been a jugglery with the law, a play with 
names and titles, to reach an illegal end, and as to whether a 
purpose has been accomplished by indirection, which would by 
direct route have been intercepted by Civil Service laws. 

Therefore in looking into the merits of this case, it is competent 
for you to consider:— 

1st: The Mint Bureau, through the letter quoted, furnishes 
ample evidence that an acting Superintendent is essential to the 
conduct of Mint and Assay. 

2nd: That fact established, it follows there was no legal or 
valid reason to alter the title of the office designated for that 
function. 

3rd: Without changing the title of the office the Superinten¬ 
dent was incompetent to change the personnel without cause. 

4th: Do such manipulations square with honest motives, 
or are they resorted to without a purpose? 

I ask: Can such vain performances be construed by any stretch 
of imagination, otherwise than a deliberate (though poorly de¬ 
vised) scheme to evade the law—a crude effort to cover the de¬ 
signs on a position wanted for another, a brazen subterfuge made 
necessary by reason of the fact that the incumbent (by his record) 
was immune from legitimate attack. 

Finally I submit:— The facts connected with his case, and 
which are equally applicable to some of the other changes, re¬ 
sulting from this “so-called” reorganization of force, unfold a 
plan designed to evade plain mandates of law — reflect a de¬ 
liberate contempt for that authority which forbids the trespass 
of a Superior Officer on the guaranteed rights of subordinates. 


18 


The spirit of indifference to Civil Service provisions, and utter 
disregard for the rights of subordinates pervading these late 
changes, coupled to previous exhibitions of a like character, im¬ 
pels me to travel outside of this specific complaint, as well as 
touch on other matters tending to cumulate evidence that Civil 
Service in these parts is held with an estimate which could hardly 
be termed “Reverence’’—suggesting that an investigation might 
disclose a condition which would warrant your commission in 
serving notice that Government employees have rights to be 
respected. 

I charge that the Superintendent of the New Orleans Mint, in 
the reduction just effected, violated Civil Service laws in other 
than the instance complained of; for the same purpose and for 
the same reason, I charge further these are not his first offences 
in that direction. 

Notable among similar cases, I cite his action in a force reduc¬ 
tion some fifteen months ago, where an ex-soldier, entitled to 
preference, was furloughed while several others in the same de¬ 
partment entitled to no preference were retained. On complaint 
of the aggrieved party, the Secretary of the Treasury referred the 
matter back to this Superintendent, quoting the law applicable, 
and asking why it had not been complied with in that case. In 
justification of this action, the Superintendent claimed the work 
required was of a technical character, which the party removed 
was incompetent to perform. The facts of the matter were this 
man had worked in this department nearly twenty years, was 
physically able and otherwise, competent to perform the duties 
required,and further, most of the work in that branch was ordinary 
laborer’s work, such, for instance, as breaking coke for the furnaces 
(which required the services of one man). But the explanation 
that this man was incompetent to do the work was sufficient, 
without further investigation, to deprive him of rights guaranteed 
by law and executive orders. 

This case is referred to merely to illustrate with what ease an 
appointing power can over-ride Civil Service when permitted to 
stand as Judge, Jury, and Executioner. 

Before closing this complaint I feel that I ought to refer to an¬ 
other character of violations of Civil Service laws ,without which 


19 


the record would be incomplete, for behind its hideous form hides 
the hand responsible for more than one lost political job. 

I refer to the system of assessing Government officials, and 
lesser employees, carried on with a boldness and persistence ex¬ 
pressive of contempt for the forbidding authority. 

I charge that Federal employees in these parts breathe an 
atmosphere of standing and perpetual violation of Civil Service 
laws, which takes its source from the political organization, com¬ 
posed mainly of Federal Officials who yield obedience to its 
edicts. 

I charge this organization by its rules has levied a fixed assess¬ 
ment of 10% of the salaries of every head official, as well as other 
employees whose salaries are within certain limits, and that this 
tax is considered a binding obligation, , even to the extent of de¬ 
manding notes for unpaid balances. I assert when this levy is 
not forthcoming, the head of the department where the delin¬ 
quency lies is not looked on with favor, and the individual failing 
to comply held in bad odor. 

If my personal experience in this line is a fair index of the per¬ 
sistency with which this policy is pursued, the presumption is 
reasonable that none could evade the requirements and escape 
the black-list. 

When I was appointed to office I was summoned to meet the 
leader of the organization (whose name I will furnish when re¬ 
quired) who informed me if I accepted the position offered, I 
would be obligated to pay into the organization 10% of my sala¬ 
ry. To these terms I agreed; and after complying for eight 
months, refused further payments. After a lapse of time, I re¬ 
ceived the following reminder: 


New Orleans, La. Oct. 26,1906 

Mr. E. N. Cornay, 

City. 

My Dear Sir: 

“We note that your account amounts to $233.34, and as we 
are in need of funds for both national and State purposes, we re¬ 
quest that you send us check for the amount, or for as much as 
you possibly can, and notes to cover the balance, etc.’^ This 


20 


letter is signed by the then Treasurer, whose name as well as 
the original will be furnished if wanted. To this demand I paid 
no attention. About a year later a new treasurer (whose name 
I will furnish when required) made the same verbal demands 
through a representative sent to my residence, when I again re¬ 
fused to comply. Unyielding to these repeated refusals to give 
up 10% of my salary, the Boss (first referred to) a few months 
later asked me what I proposed to do about my assessment, the 
result of this the last discussion of the proposition was so unsatis¬ 
factory that I have since been persona non grata with the powers; 
and to this bad standing is due in a measure my impotence to 
ward off the official ax. 

I do not charge that the Superintendent made demands on me 
for contributions, but I do assert the system referred to is no¬ 
torious, that it is a fixed policy of the organization of which him¬ 
self and other officials are conspicuous figures, and that to these 
regulations they are acquiescent. 

While I do not charge that I was removed because of my refusal 
to meet these demands, I do assert, that my failure to do so lost 
the influences which comes in such good play when “forces are 
being reduced,” and this status of my standing with the powers 
was a factor of no mean proportion. I assert without fear of ration¬ 
al contradiction, had my 10% record been clean, and had I other¬ 
wise been subservient to a degree sufficient to have merited the 
good will of the ruling forces, the problem of “how to get rid of 
Chief Clerk” would not have presented itself for solution, nor 
would the Roster of the New Orleans Mint have been encumbered 
with the oddity of an “acting chief clerk.” 

What other fate could have been in store for an employee ex¬ 
hibiting such stubborn resistance to the “Test of fitness” ordain¬ 
ed by the system in force? What claim for favors can be set up 
by one who resists the relentless system, but vaguely described 
above. 

Only a few days ago the Federal officials held a conference to 
discuss the 10% situation which (according to reports) was not 
in a healthy condition. At this meeting (I have it from reliable 
authority) two of the head Officials declined to continue pro¬ 
ducing, while one enthusiast of the “System” (whose name can 


21 


be furnished when wanted) during a discussion of ways and means 
to reach the subordinates, suggested: “If they don^t come up 
kick them out/^ 

These charges I made with full appreciation of the responsibili¬ 
ties; knowing them to be true, I entertain no fear that any one 
will risk a denial under oath. 

I have in this protest (against a personal wrong) broadened 
its scope, by exposing a system only indirectly connected with 
the main question; not with a view of strengthening my individual 
case, but rather for the benefit to accrue to Government em¬ 
ployees generally, if it be the means of causing an investigation. 

In this connection, I will say: I do not petition for re-instate¬ 
ment; for several reasons: First, I have felt justified in re¬ 
ferring to matters in the course of this complaint, not calculated 
to promote that relation which needs exist between a chief and 
his subordinate: Secondly, holding ofiice under the dispensa¬ 
tion here dominant is not a very desirable occupation for any 
one who resents interference with free thought and action. On 
the whole, it is very probable my late experience will amply sat¬ 
isfy my appetite for office. 

While the rights and interests of an employee of the Govern¬ 
ment ndividually may be a matter of small concern, too in¬ 
significant perhaps of itself to attract attention, yet when en¬ 
croachment on these touches and affects indirectly the rights and 
interests of the army of Public Servants, who feel the effects of a 
tolerance of Civil Service law violations, such matters lose per¬ 
sonal identity, involving as they do questions of too much magni¬ 
tude, to be left in doubt by lax enforcements, or failure on the 
part of the authorities to hold the appointing Powers to strict 
obedience of clear provisions of law, or to tolerate manifest juggle¬ 
ry. Otherwise, Civil Service would descend to the level of a 
“Mock Tribunal,” and its laws become fit ornaments for museums. 

Respectfully submitted, 

E. N. CORNAY. 

NOTE: The foregoing complaint was amended in one par¬ 
ticular. After the investigation opened I handed a written 
amendment as follows:— 


22 


“ I desire to strike out the clause which reads: do not 

petition for reinstatement, etc.’, and substitute therefor as fol¬ 
lows: ‘I ask the Commission in the event the facts of the 
case justify to order my reinstatement.’ 

This amendment, however, was a vain performance. The “act¬ 
ing Chief Clerk” continued to the end of the fiscal year to fill an 
office which (according to the Superintendent) had been abolished 
—representing the superintendent according to the functions of 
Chief Clerk as provided by statute; and the appropriation for 
the New Orleans assay office for the fiscal year ending June 30th. 
1912 carries an appropriation for a Chief Clerk, as usual, 
through the recommendation of the Director of Mint; but the 
former occupant of this “abolished” position remains on the out¬ 
side looking on; while contemplating the grandeur of a system, 
which (through rigid and impartial law enforcement) so thorough¬ 
ly protects employees of the Government in their guaranteed 
rights, when armed with such valuable assets as the following 
certificate: 

U. S, MINT SERVICE. 

Form No. 970. 

3^x6^. 

FURLOUGH AND RATING CARD. 

Mint of the United States at New Orleans, La 
Office of the Superintendent 

July 15th, 1910. 

This is to certify that Mr. E. N. Cornay, employed in 
this Mint as Chief Clerk, has this day been discharged from the 
service, and in accordance with Section 2, Rule 3, Civil Service 
Regulations, governing appointments, etc., in mints and assay 
offices, approved February 28, 1908. His rating is as follows: 
Workmanship, Excellent; Conduct—Excellent. 

Hugh S. Suthon, 
Superintendent. 

Prior to investigation had, I attacked the “economical adjust¬ 
ment” plan in the following open letter addressed to the Hon. A. 
Piatt Andrews, who aided in the structure. 


23 


Since the statement ©f facts borne therein have never been 
denied or their import questioned, is sufficient evidence that they 
are true. 

If true, they must stand in corroboration of the assertion made 
in my complaint to the effect, “the pretence of economy set up 
in defence of my illegal removal would not bear the light of in¬ 
vestigation.’’ 

These unvarnished facts, which are but a fair sample of these 
officials’ ideas of “Economy”, will bear close reading, as they 
furnish an insight of what “Economy” means when calculated 
as a lever to keep favorites on the pay-rolls on one hand, and on 
the other, when applied as a “White Wash” for illegal acts. 

It might be observed that Mr. Andrews, who evidenced such a 
rage for economy, was (in the light of recent history) at that time 
on the Government’s pay-rolls in two capacities. This is the 
same Mr. Andrews who was lately caught drawing a salary of 
$5000.00 per annum as assistant secretary of the Treasury and 
$3000.00 as special assistant to the currency commission. In 
justice to him it can be said whatever might be his proclivities 
for dual-office holding, he at least possesses the quality of making 
some restitution for his own overdrawn salaries—even though at 
the expense of subordinates, and at the cost of approving the 
altering of appropriations of congress, and changing other 
statutes. 


New Orleans, Aug. 6, 1910. 

Hon. a. Piatt Andrews, Asst. Sect, of the Treas. 
Washington, D. C. 

Sir:— 

During your short term as director of the Mint you earned 
quite a reputation for economy; and since you have directed the 
affairs of the Mint Bureau in your latter capacity of Assistant 
Secretary of the Treasury, you have evidenced an ambition to 
improve on that record. 

However, in your zeal to retrench and stop leaks, you have 
overlooked some things, which (if taken into account) might add 
very materially to the savings you have effected by cuts in sala- 


24 


ries and reduction of force in the various departments under your 
supervision. 

It seems in your crusade of reforms in expenditures no small 
items have escaped your attention, from the merging of two or 
three positions into one, to the cut of forty cents per diem on the 
wage of an employee. 

All of these small affairs you have diligently attended to and 
readily approved when submitted by under officials, but for some 
reason not plain, you have overlooked some of the broader ave¬ 
nues of reforms in that direction, which if attended to with the 
diligence applied to smaller items would add substantial value to 
your assets as an economizer. 

These reflections suggest a few questions touching your system 
of economy, which are not quite clear to the average mind. 

You recently approved the action of the Superintendent of the 
New Orleans Mint, in his economical efforts, though his work 
evidenced a rather obscure vision of a large and consequential 
item burdening the payrolls of that institution. 

When the Superitendent submitted for your approval the plan 
of reduction devised (in response to your instructions tore-adjust 
the force to conform to the requirements of an assay office) it is 
strange in scanning the list of changes it did not occur to you, 
that he had in his haste overlooked a high salaried official, whose 
title does not very well fit an assay office; a rather extravagant 
adjunct, when the volume of work to be performed is consi¬ 
dered. 

When you approved a change in the personnel of the office of 
Chief Clerk on the pretext of economy (even in defiance of Civil 
Service laws) effecting a saving of $800.00 per annum, and when 
you approved a reduction of the salary of the assistant assayer 
(notwithstanding his compensation was fixed and specifically 
appropriated for) effecting a saving of $700.00 per annum, and 
when you further approved a reduction of the wages of the fore¬ 
man of the assayers laboratory from $4.25 per diem to $3.85 per 
diem, effecting a saving of about $100.00 per annum, or a total 
saving of sixteen hundred dollars per annum on these items; why 
did it not occur to you that the assay office at New Orleans, as 
operated for the past fifteen months, remained burdened with a 


25 


Coiner at a salary of 12500.00 per annum, overbalancing these 
items by nearly a thousand dollars a year? 

In view of the rather queer code of economy applied to these 
late reforms at the New Orleans Mint is it pertinent to ask: Why 
is the Coiner, ( a position wiped out by operation of late changes) 
who has already been allowed to draw a salary of $2500.00 per 
annum since April 1909 (date of suspension of coinage) with ab¬ 
solutely no functions more onerous than signing the pay-rolls, 
further favored and allowed to continue his sleep in the lap of 
official luxury? 

Further, why is your policy of economy not carried out to its 
logical end? Since you have reduced the New Orleans Mint to 
the grade of an assay office, effected by stoppage of coinage, why 
not apply the complement of officials alloted to the several other 
like institutions under your control? Why not qualify the as- 
sayer now incumbent as assayer in charge (as in other assay 
offices), thereby effecting a further saving of $3500.00 per an¬ 
num, the cost of a Superintendent, whose functions are so la¬ 
borious as to allow time to devote to several other occupations, 
and manage to discharge his obligations to the government by 
applying one hour three or four days a week (sometimes less) 
to the duties of his office? Have you stopped to figure that 
these two salaries foot up $6000.00—or four times as much as 
the three small items referred to? 

It can hardly be conjectured that you have halted here in your 
economical policy, because these officials are constituted by 
statute, since it has been found feasible to depose a chief clerk 
covered by the same provision. Nor should the fact that they 
are Presidential appointees block your way to economy, for it is 
a very simple proposition to request the President to ask for the 
resignation of officials defunct (at least as to the coiner) by opei;a- 
tion of changed conditions. 

These little inconsistencies are, to say the least a little puz¬ 
zling, and a final analysis of your policy of retrenchment in ex¬ 
penditure (which does not square with the code of genuine econo¬ 
my) invites the conclusion that your ideas of official extravagance 
are confined to the ranks of subordinates of the second degree. 


26 


Were such a one-sided policy applied in quarters where there 
were militant political forces to reckon with, or where there were 
political assets to be considered, it might be conjectured that 
our system was mixed a little with politics, but since party or¬ 
ganization in these parts is confined mainly to the gathering 
of delegates to national conventions (a job which can be at¬ 
tended to by other Federal officials) it would be unreasonable 
to suspect you would permit such a trifling consideration to halt 
you in your designs to curtail expenditures by weeding out 
sinecures. 

Your work as to minor details has been well performed. It 
now only remains for you to apply equal energy to the more im¬ 
portant items which will not only swell your savings to large pro¬ 
portions but also serve to clear up some seeming inconsistencies, 
and on the whole, keep the record straight. 

Respectfully, 

E. N. CORNAY. 

NOTE: About two months after this discussion on economy, 
the resignation of the Coiner referred to was called for; but not 
until he had drawn three months’ pay as Coiner for an institution 
reorganized on the basis of an Assay Office and dismantled as 
a Mint. 

It cannot be urged in justification that the Coiner had settle¬ 
ments to make with the Government, as Coinage was suspended 
April 1909, and at the annual settlement of the Mint June Sdth. 
1909—all metal in his possession was turned over to the Superin¬ 
tendent, from which date he had no responsibility, nor a cent to 
account for. 

It is in order to observe: The Coiner unlike the Chief-Clerk 
could boast of a clean 10% record. 

It was he who once drew the deadly parallel on that score 
by a remark to the effect; that he paid his pro-rata promptly; 
while the Chief Clerk did not contribute a copper; and therefore 
the latter was entitled to no consideration. 

The foregoing complaint, supplemented by a specific sworn 
affidavit, resulted in an investigation begun in the early days 
of September, 1910. 


27 


After furnishing my own testimony and list of witnesses, the 
following suggestion was offered the examiner. 

Mr. John McIlhenny 

Civil Service Commission, 

New Orleans, La. 

Dear Sir:— 

In the event the list of witnesses furnished you is not sufficient 
for your purpose, I suggest you might call for the books of the 
Republican Organization, where you will likely find a full list of 
all those who have paid assessments, and the amounts paid. The 
fact that my account was rendered in dollars and cents, is evidence 
that books are kept, for it is hardly presumable that accounts were 
kept for my special benefit. 

During the course of this investigation (covering a period of 
several weeks) a voluminous file was gathered; the full extent 
of which remains a secret of the authorities at Washington, 
together with their opinion regarding the acts of Public Officials 
as disclosed by the evidence borne in that record. 

However, the absence of the ^‘Official record” is no bar to an 
intelligent retrospect of the case, in all its material bearings; as 
the writer is qualified to undertake such a review as witness 
from the stand.” My own deposition, coupled to a knowledge 
of the main evidence adduced (information acquired from the 
witnesses themselves prior to filing charges), is sufficient equip¬ 
ment to comment on facts established, holding myself amen¬ 
able to correction by the files now in the hands of the au¬ 
thorities, which more than bear out every charge. 

I charged “Federal employees in these parts breathe an at¬ 
mosphere of standing and perpetual violations of Civil Service 
laws”. That charge is sustained by testimony covering my own 
experience beginning in February 1903, and the last victim of 
the system (who appeared as a witness) went through the grill 
during the latter part of August 1910 (in the very shadow of this 
investigation) and at least three other witnesses,whose experience 
date during the years 1908-9, filled in the intervening gap; an 
array clearly establishing “Standing and perpetual violations”, 
viz: from February 1903 to August 1910 the latest offence (as 


28 


far as the record goes) being about a month after these charges 
were made. 

I qualified the charge that 10% was levied on Government 
employees, by drawing the line at those whose “salaries are within 
certain limits’" (meaning somewhere in the $1,800 grade). In this 
I was in error: the mark was under-shot, for it developed later 
through witnesses, there was hardly a limit, neither as to size of 
salary, nor sex, one witness at least being in the sixty-five dollar 
per month grade, and at least one witness, a female clerk; 
facts which were not in mind at the time the charges were made. 
Hence in this particular more was proved than charged. 

As to the allegation: “This tax is considered a binding obli¬ 
gation even to the extent of demanding notes for the unpaid 
balances.” I call on a letter filed with the Civil Service Com¬ 
mission, directed to me by the Treasurer of the Republican Or¬ 
ganization, rendering an account of my indebtedness in Dollars 
and Cents, and asking for my note to cover such balance as I 
might be unable to liquidate at once—the letter referred to hav¬ 
ing been a subject of considerable correspondence; fully exhibited 
by various letters to the Commission together with their replies, 
which will appear further along. 

That branch of the complaint relating to an illegal removal 
from office, was at once swallowed up by the more aggravated 
charges; no further investigation of which was had (as far as my 
knowledge goes) than a question put by the Commissioner, as to 
whether I could prove my removal from office was due to a re¬ 
fusal to contribute a percentage of my salary. Not being in the 
business of performing miracles (a faculty necessary to prove in¬ 
tent) this question was promptly replied to in the negative. But 
whether or not I could do the impossible, the facts of the case as 
set forth in the complaint stand uncontradicted, and are un¬ 
assailable. If they do not constitute an illegal removal, then none 
can be safe in office, and the system purporting to afford protec¬ 
tion resembles a Joke. If the assessment system as developed 
on tr al; coupled to my stubborn resistance to its requirements 
(as in evidence) is not suggestive, then Courts of Justice have 
or ages erred in etitertaining circumstantial evidence; and Judges 
have committed countless wrongs, when they have permitted 


29 


men to be convicted in the absence of positive proofs of motive. 
Further space need not be taken upon such a small matter as 
the rights of an individual. Passing to something more far- 
reaching, and of greater public concern, attention is called to 
developments bearing on the serious charges. 

My own deposition shows, the Chairman of the Republican 
Executive Committee (who is the recognized referee of the ad¬ 
ministration, and dispenser of patronage), when tendering a 
position in the Government service, informed me I would be re¬ 
quired to pay to the organization 10% of my salary, condi¬ 
tions to which I assented and complied with for about seven 
months. After having paid one hundred and fifteen dollars to 
the Treasurer (receipt for one hundred dollars of which was 
filed with the Commission, another receipt for fifteen dollars 
having been mislaid), I became delinquent. In due course a state¬ 
ment was rendered to me showing amount due, and calling for 
cash, or its equivalent in notes. The demand referred to, signed 
by the Treasurer of the organization (the original of which is in 
the hands of the Civil Service Commission), read as follows: 

New^ Orleans, La., Oct. 25th. 1906. 

Mr. E. N. Cornay. 

My^Dear Sir:— 

‘‘We note that your account amounts to $233.34, and as we are 
in need of funds for both National and State purposes, we request 
that you send us check for the amount, or for as much as you 
possibly can,—and notes to cover the balance.” (The above is 
a verbatim extract of the original which was copied at time 
charges were made). The balance of this letter, which I quote 
from memory (as I have been unable to get the original from 
the Commission after four requests for its return), continues sub¬ 
stantially as follows:— 

“We have had to send considerable amounts to carry the doubt¬ 
ful districts of the North. Good friends of ours have ad¬ 
vanced this money^—refund for which we must make.” (And 
other mention, not recalled). If the Treasurer concerned finds 
any errors in the latter portion quoted from memory it is his 
privilege to correct same by the original, now in the Custody of 


30 


the Commission, as stated. To this demand no attention was 
paid; about a year later, the identical demand was made ver¬ 
bally, by a prepresentative of the Treasurer who succeeded the 
author of the letter quoted. This call was at my residence I 
dismissed the matter by informing this agent that the one hun¬ 
dred and fifteen dollars I had paid in were the last I intended to 
pay. Several months after this positive refusal I was accosted 
by the referee first mentioned (The Party Boss), who stated he 
was informed I was not keeping up my dues as agreed; and wanted 
to know what I proposed to do about it; on which occasion the 
answer to the Treasurer’s agent was repeated in language more 
emphatic than polite, with the further statement that I was un¬ 
able to pay the tax, and besides had in the past contributed 
more than my share to the support of the Party. The question 
is who reported my delinquency? and why should the leader be 
advised? I believe, it is in evidence, an applicant for clerkship, 
(eligible from the Civil Service list) applied to the head of a De 
partment where a vacancy existed, for a position. He was sent 
to the Treasurer of the organization (who was acting as referee) 
for examination, being plainly informed the proper 0. K. was re¬ 
quired. This applicant reported as instructed, and there a sur¬ 
render of 10% of the salary attached to this position was laid 
down as a condition and when the applicant demurred, and in¬ 
formed his exminer that he was on the Civil Service list, and was 
under the impression the laws inhibited such demands, he was 
advised Civil Service did not amount to a row of pins—that this 
thing was done all over the country, and if he wanted a job the 
sooner this was understood the better. He was further questioned 
as to whether or not he was paying his assessments on the posi¬ 
tion then occupied (the applicant then holding a position in an¬ 
other department) and to a negative answer this referee said 
that the head of the department he was serving under was not 
doing his duty (as it was the duty of those who held office, to 
supply the finances for the organization), and they would see 
that in the future there would be no more free rides. 

I believe it is further in evidence that this same official referred 
'ater several other applicants on the Civil Service list to this same 
referee (who had since the first case mentioned been appointed to 


31 


a Presidential Office, but who continued his duty as examiner of the 
qualification of applicants). These later subjects relate substan¬ 
tially the same experience. I believe it is in evidence this official 
besides sending all applicants for position in his department to the 
authority empowered to O. K. applications, asked a female 
employee of his office (who had been allowed an increase of one 
hundred Dollars in her salary), to donate the amount of this ad¬ 
vanced allowance to the fund. I believe it is also in evidence at a 
conference of office holders, called to discuss the 10% situation as 
affecting delinquents on which occasion two of the head officials 
declined to continue a surrender of 10% of their salaries. A 
high official (who might have thought he was setting a value 
on old rags, instead of placing an estimate on Civil Service laws) 
displayed his reverential respect for the system by proclaiming 
his policy to be—^‘To kick them out if they don’t come up.” 

To say nothing of Jugglery with Civil Service lists, which may 
or may not swell the record, the foregoing brief recitals, substan¬ 
tially the facts as disclosed on inquiry had by the Civil Service 
Commission, are (though but a fragment of the record) sufficient 
to convey a fair idea of the character of a case which appears to 
have puzzled the authorities; no less are they ample to convince; 
whatever may be the qualification of these officials, to raise cam¬ 
paign funds, or gather delegates to National Conventions, their 
estimate of Civil Service is not such as to lend inspiration to the 
cause. 

NOTE: The identity of individuals either by name or official 
designation is omitted, for reason such is unnecessary for the 
purpose of this publication, which is aimed at a system, individ¬ 
ual actions being mere incidents. Suffice it that these occurrences 
are properly identified in the record. 


32 


CHAPTER 11. 


Leaving behind the first chapter, which deals with violation of 
laws, the next search belongs to the findings, the verdict of au¬ 
thorities to whom is committed the preservation of the Civil 
Service integrity. On the heels of the close of this investigation, 
the boast was freely bandied to the effect the affair would ‘Vind 
up in smoke.’’ However unauthorized such predictions may 
have been, and no doubt they were but the promptings of ir¬ 
responsible persons hardly capable to grasp a situation too 
serious for such a painless ending, yet the ‘Vind-up” was at 
least by painfully slow stages, and at the cost of considerable 
energy, as evidenced by the following correspondence. 


New Orleans, La., Oct. 6th, 1910. 
To THE Civil Service Commission, 

Washington, D. C. 


Sir: 

At the investigation of charges of Civil Service violations had 
at New Orleans several months ago, I filed a letter directed to 
me by the Treasurer of the Republican Organization making de¬ 
mands on me for my notes to cover unpaid balances due on ac¬ 
count of an assessment on my salary as an employee of the Gov¬ 
ernment. I would thank you to return this letter. 

Respectfully, 

E. N. CORNAY. 


Washington, D. C. October 17, 1910. 
Mr. E. N. Cornay, 

1518 Terpsichore Street, 

New Orleans, La. 

Sir: 

In reply to your letter of October 6th, requesting the return of 
a letter signed by the Treasurer of the Republican Organizations 


33 



which you furnished the Commission in connection with its re¬ 
cent investigation at New Orleans, you are informed that the in¬ 
vestigation has not been terminated. The Commission will be 
pleased to return the letter you refer to as soon as final action 
shall have been taken in the matter, but in the meantime would 
like to retain the letter as part of the evidence in the case. 

By direction of the Commission: 

Very respectfully, 

(Signed) John A. McIlhenny, 

Acting President. 


Louisa, P. O. Jan. 12th, 1911. 

Civil Service Commission, 

Washington, D. C. 

Gentlemen : 

In the matter of charges of violations of Civil Service laws filed 
with your Commission last July, during the investigation of which 
I filed a letter directed to me making demands for assessment on 
my salary as a Government employee, I would again ask the re¬ 
turn of the document. Some several months ago, I requested 
the return of same and received a reply signed by Mr. Mcllhen- 
ny stating the letter would be returned when the case was closed. 
Nearly six months having elapsed since the evidence in this case 
has been placed before your commission, with no decision, sug¬ 
gests you do not attach much importance to such small irregu¬ 
larities as/‘Holding up Government employees” for political pur¬ 
poses. I feel that I am entitled to my personal property placed in 
your custody, if not a Judgment. 

Please return the letter referred to. 

Respectfully, 

E. N. CORNAY. 


Washington, D. C. January 23, 1911. 

Mr. E. N. Cornay, 

Louisa P. 0. Louisiana. 

Sir: 

The Commission is in receipt of your letter of January 12th, 
1911, in which you request that the letter making demands upon 


34 




you for political assessments, which you filed with the Civil Serv¬ 
ice Commission last July, be returned to you. 

In reply, you are advised that this letter will be returned to you 
after the New Orleans case has been closed. 

By direction of the Commission: 

Very respectfully, 

(Signed) John C. Black, 

President. 


New Orleans, La. March 8th, 1911. 
Civil Service Commission, 

Washington, D. C. 

Sirs: 

Referring to charges lodged against Federal Officials at New 
Orleans, investigation of which was had six months ago without 
returns, I have to make this, a third, request for the return of a 
letter addressed to the undersigned, making demands for past due 
assessment on my salary. Your letter of Jan. 23rd, in reply to a 
second request, stated the document in question would be return¬ 
ed as soon as the case was closed. As it appears to me time suf¬ 
ficient has elapsed to meet the ends of a careful and matured 
decision, I ask for Judgment in this matter, and the return of the 
letter mentioned. 

Respectfully, 

E. N. CORNAY. 


New Orleans March 14th, 1911. 

To THE President, 

White House, 

Washington, D. C. 

Sir: 

The undersigned, who has paid the penalty for refusing to 
yield obedience to an organized system of ‘‘percentage rake off” 
levied on the salaries of Government employees—a dispensation 
maintained and enforced by High Federal Officials—begs leave to 
call your attention to a complaint filed with the Civil Service 


35 




Commission, yet pending after a lapse of seven months; and asks 
for such action as is warranted by the facts of the case. 

On the 22nd of July, 1910, I filed complaint with the Civil 
Service Commission protesting against the illegal action of the 
Superintendent of the Mint at New Orleans, in separating me 
from the service; to which I coupled charges of gross violations 
of Civil Service laws on the part of Federal Officials, responsible 
for a system of assessment of Government employees, degrading 
to public service; rebelling against which I believe was a con¬ 
tributory cause of my being relieved from duty. 

These charges were investigated six months ago, but it appears 
that the records slumber in some Department of the Govern¬ 
ment, while the Rough Riders over Civil Service laws continue to 
enjoy immunity from the consequences of their acts—and an 
illegal removal from office remains unremedied. 

I respectfully submit a judgment in this matter is long past 
due. The facts (as disclosed in the investigation had) call for 
action, and further delay is unreasonable, and not calculated to 
promote the ends of fair-play and justice, nor inspire confidence 
in the integrity of those laws designed as the bulwark of clean 
and efficient Public Service. I therefore ask: If this case has 
not yet been placed before you, that the record be sent for, and 
judgment rendered. 

If the record as made up show violations of laws, I ask for a 
stern application of the penalties. If there be no law to cover the 
acts shown to have been committed, I ask that this fact be made 
public, together with the evidence from which such conclusions 
are reached. 

I desire to say; my actions in the prosecution of this matter is 
not inspired by a Partisan spirit, desirous of casting reflections on 
Political opponents, for I have been a life long Republican, one 
who has faced uneven odds, in pursuit of my political faith in 
days when some of those now enjoying power and emoluments 
from a Republican Administration were conspicuous figures 
among the opponents of Republicanism in these parts. 

My offending has been in revolting against a system repugnant 
to one who has for years been a voluntary and liberal contributor, 
free from specific exactions—for refusing to comply with regula- 


36 


tions of the ^‘Office Holders” code, I paid an undue penalty. 
I now invoke an equal application of the penalties prescribed by 
the Civil Service laws. 

Respectfully submitted, 

E. N. CORNAY. 


Washington, D. C. March 11th, 1911. 
Mr. Emile N. Corn ay, 

1518 Terpsichore Street, 

New^ Orleans, Louisiana 

Sir: 

Your letter of March 8th to the Commission is received, and 
noted. A vast number of other affairs of importance have com¬ 
pelled the attention of the Commission, in addition to the atten¬ 
tion that it has paid to your own application and earnest appeal. 

The Commission therefore hopes that you will not be seriously 
inconvenienced by its longer retaining your letter. Of the con¬ 
clusion that may be reached in your case you will probably soon 
be advised. 

By direction of the Commission: 

Very respectfully, 

(Signed) John L. Black, 

President. 


New Orleans, La. April 15th, 1911. 
Civil Service Commission, 

Washington, D. C. 

Sirs: 

I trust your commission will not consider I am unduly persis¬ 
tent in again addressing you regarding the Civil Service investi¬ 
gation had at New Orleans by Mr. Mclllhenney about eight 
months ago. Your letter dated March 11th (in reply to the third 
communication in reference to this case from me) advised that a 
conclusion would be reached at an early date. 

Five weeks having passed with no results, and with no means 
of figuring (judging from past experience) as to when to expect a 
settlement of the matter, which to Ine at least is of some moment. 


37 




I must again ask for a judgment and a return of the documentary 
evidence which I placed in your hands. 

In view of the fact this case does not appear to involve any in¬ 
tricate questions of law, and is certainly not confusing as to facts; 
I am at a loss to understand why decision has not been rendered. 

It is hardly presumable that this unaccountable delay is due to 
deficiency in proof, for the reason that the records bear documen¬ 
tary evidence sufficient to carry conviction as to the verity of the 
charges, should all oral testimony be discredited and eliminated. 
Besides, I have every reason to conclude Mr. Mclllhenney gather¬ 
ed proofs sufficient to satisfy requirements, from the fact that 
evidence available was not called for. For instance: A former 
Federal Official at New Orleans, whose name I handed in with the 
statement, that witness would testify to various caucuses held 
by Federal Officials in which he participated, when ways and 
means to enforce the 10% assessment levied on Government em¬ 
ployees as well as other phases of the ‘‘System’^ were discussed, 
was not called upon. Further from the fact Mr. Mclllhenney 
did not deem it necessary to call for the books of the ^‘Office- 
holding Assessment Concern,” from which I suggested (in the 
event the list of witnesses furnished by me were insufficient for 
his purpose) he would more than likely be able to secure a com¬ 
plete list of all victims, ascertain the amount each was taxed, 
amounts due and “ripe for notes;” added to my impression that 
the records as made up bore sufficient evidence to close the case; 
my own opinion being, if the case as closed was too weak, your 
tribunal is almost too exacting to be convinced. The idea of 
calling for these books suggested itself from the fact that letters 
addressed to myself and the Cashier at the U. S. Mint demanding 
our notes in settlement of balances due, and rendering our ac¬ 
counts in dollars and cents, evidenced that books were kept, as it 
is hardly presumable that only two employees were singled out to 
be held to strict account for a 10% rake off. 

Therefore, if the conclusion that evidence was left behind on 
account of not being needed is justifiable; if there remains no 
question as to the fact that high officials, and bosses of these 
officials, had laid down as a condition of appointment to office 
of a surrender of 10% of the applicant’s salary, and had sought 


38 


to enforce these terms by demanding notes for unpaid balances; 
if it be a fact that the Superintendent of the U. S. Mint at New 
Orleans did remove anemployee under Civil Service who had 
violated no law or regulation (except it be the law laid down 
by the- office holding cabal relative to the 10% exaction) and 
your commission is unable after eight months deliberation to de¬ 
termine whether there is any law applicable to this state of af¬ 
fairs, then indeed the law is al most too intricate and complicated 
effectively to protect Government employees or to promote the 
efficiency and integrity of public service, hence it badly needs 
remodeling and simplification. 

It certainly strikes the average mind that eight months is a 
long time to determine whether or not subordinate employees 
have rights which the superiors in authority are bound to respect; 
on in plainer terms, whether Civil Service is a reality or a joke. 
It is a long time to decide whether High government officials, 
who lend themselves to the promotion of a “System’^ of salary 
assessment, reducing Government employees to the level of vas¬ 
sals, are beyond the pale of the law. 

If those arraigned by these charges stand too high to be amen¬ 
able to law, or if their acts violated no law, it is high time that 
fact be known; for the boast has been freely and frequently made 
that this investigation would amount to nothing. In fact, I 
believe the record of this case bear the deposition of an applicant 
for a position, who was on the Civil Service list, which shows that 
he was referred to a high Official in a different department from 
the one in which his application was filed, to answer questions test¬ 
ing his qualifications, (which means under the dispensation ob¬ 
taining, “agreeable’' to the 10% requirements). I believe it is 
in evidence when this applicant reminded his questioner of the 
fact that he was on the Civil Service list, and was under the 
impression that Civil Service laws inhibited such demands, he 
was told by his questioner that Civil Service “did not amount 
to a row of pins;” that this thing was done all over the country, 
and the sooner he understood the situation, the better for his 
own interests. 

When Civil Service laws are held in such “Reverence” (an es¬ 
timate shared quite generally in Officialdom in these parts, judg- 


39 


ing from the wholesale violations), it was not astonishing to hear 
it predicted that this investigation, like other similar affairs, 
would wind up in smoke. However, in this instance, it is my firm 
purpose to leave nothing undone to see that the smoke at least is 
a respectable one in size; for I feel that I have sustained sufficient 
damage by having been brazenly juggled out of the Government 
service, for no offense other than rebelling against odious system, 
without the additional penalty of being placed in the light of 
having entered false or frivolous charges. 

It may be that in this communication I have expressed myself 
a trifle strongly, yet I feel I am justified by the scant satisfaction 
accorded. I feel that the facts and equities of this case called 
for such attention as would have resulted in some termination 
months ago, and the time has come for unreserved discussion. 

Rights granted me by laws instituted for the protection of 
Government employees, have been ridden over rough shod by an 
official who abused authority, and juggled with Civil Service laws 
to attain his end. The intrigues resorted to, need not be here re¬ 
peated, as they are fully set forth in my complaint, and stand 
uncontroverted; yet I cannot find out, after a wait of eight 
months, whether or not this official is liscensed to gratify his per¬ 
sonal predilections at the expense of a subordinate; nor can I find 
out, after this long wait, whether high officials of the government, 
who (in obedience to the requirements of a political organization) 
maintained a systematic levy on the salaries of public servants, 
violated any law, or if so, whether any penalty is due, or whether 
the “System” (primarily responsible for my separation from the 
service) is to be legalized by a finding of “no law to cover.” 

I submit; A continued delay is a mere trifling with a serious 
question, indefensible from any stand-point, and not calculated 
to further the ends of justice, or inspire confidence and respect 
for the efficiency of Civil Service. I have gone into this matter 
at some length for the reason I mean this communication to close 
this case on my part, in so far as the Civil Service Commission 
is concerned. 

Respectfully, 

E. N. CORNAY. 


40 


New Orleans, La., April 17, 1911. 


To THE President, 

White House, 

Washington, D. C. 

Sir: 

For your information, I enclose communication directed to 
the Civil Service Commission, which is self explanatory. 

I had the honor of addressing you on the same subject some 
six weeks ago, and regret to say have received no further acknowl¬ 
edgment than a registry receipt return. 

Perhaps in the stress of more press ng affairs, you have not had 
time to give the case attention; if so, I trust you will at an early 
date read the complaint and charges submitted, and review the 
record as made upon the investigation had by the Civil Service 
Commission. 

I have made diligent efforts, (against some odds) to get redress 
for an invasion of my rights as an employee of the Government. 
In the course of this combat matters of some public concern, so 
closely associated with the main complaint as to have been insep¬ 
arable, have been brought so conspicuously to the front, that in¬ 
dividuality has lost identity, and the case assumes the character 
of a public question, affecting as it does the vast army of public 
servants, who are guaranteed by law immunity from illegitimate 
exactions. 

Believing that in matters of this character the ends of justice 
are best served by orderly procedure, I have avoided any 
public discussion, or the slightest reference to the case outside 
of ‘‘Court,for I have regarded my part, as a mere instrument 
lending assistance to a search for a true state of affairs, rather 
than prosecutor; hence when this investigation was opened I took 
it for granted it meant such action as the facts developed would 
warrant; regardless of any consideration which might invite 
quibbles or delays. 

In this estimate I have been disappointed. I looked for re¬ 
sults; for something more definite than a silence which puts me 
in the light of having brought frivolous charges (for no other 
conclusion could be drawn from the prolonged delay in rendering 
a decision) a reflection not justified by the facts adduced on in- 


41 


vestigation, and which I am not inclined to allow to stand with¬ 
out inquiry as to its meaning. 

Having discharged in a conscientious manner what I considered 
my obligations to the Government and the public—in a matter 
reaching beyond personal concern—I feel substantial satisfaction 
is due, and I am not disposed to accept a silent termination of the 
case without protest. 

With this letter I will have exhausted all resources for vindi¬ 
cation at the hands of the constituted authorities, and if driven 
from this Forum, on account of a denial of such hearing as is legiti¬ 
mately due—the responsibility for such public discussion as may 
be necessary for square settlement, must rest where it properly 
belongs. 

I fully appreciate the uneven odds against an individual in a 
case of this kind, especially when in the plain walks of life, but I 
hold to the faith that Right and the Truth overbalances in the 
end all other forces, and on the strength of this conviction I have 
marked my course from the inception of this controversy, with 
the resolute purpose not to relinquish until the ^‘system’’ de¬ 
grading to public service, which I attacked, is destroyed, or at 
least laid bare to the public view. I now submit the matter. 

Respectfully, 

E. N. CORNAY. 


Two weeks having passed with no acknowledgment of receipt 
of this last Tetter to the President indicated clearly that com¬ 
munications on that subject were not welcome; and I abandon¬ 
ed all ideas of inducing action in the matter; however concluded 
to wait a while longer for developments before taking further 
steps—In the meantime my attention was attracted to the fol¬ 
lowing remarks of Congressman Cullop, which bore such close 
resemblance to the Louisiana case as to arouse suspicion—and I 
addressed the Congressman on the subject—This being my first 
reference to the case, outside of the constituted authorities.— 
(letter reproduced). 


42 



(From Times-Democrat.) 

PERNICIOUS POLITICAL ACTIVITY CHARGED TO 
POSTMASTER GENERAL. 

Washington, April 28.—Representative Cullop of Indiana, a 
Democrat, in a speech to-day in the House vigorously assailed 
Postmaster-General Hitchcock and the Post Office Department 
for ‘‘pernicious activity” in politics. 

“The Post Office Department is the greatest political machine 
ever constructed in this or any other country,” said Mr. Cullop, 
“and it is openly administered as a political organization.” 

Too much time devoted by the head of the Post Office Depart¬ 
ment to political affairs, and too little to business, were declared 
by Mr. Cullop to be responsible for the annual deficit in the opera¬ 
tion of the department. He said the people should know whether 
any of the 272,000 postmasters or employees had been discharged 
or reduced in rank for failure to perform political duties or to con¬ 
tribute to campaign funds, or whether employees are regularly 
assessed for campaign purposes and are punished if they do not 
comply. 

He declared the appointive power lodged with the President is 
greater than that enjoyed by any foreign monarch. “The power 
vested in the President is almost unlimited,” he said. “No man 
is wise enough or good enough or great enough to be entrusted 
with such power. It is the experience of the world that men 
clothed with such power become impatient of restraint.” 


New Orleans, La. May 1st, 1911. 
Congressman Cullop, 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir :— 

My attention was drawn to your remarks of April 28th., rela¬ 
tive to the Postmaster-General’s political machine and assessment 
system. I beg to refer you to a rather interesting chapter on 
this subject; which may be of some assistance in a probe of the 
subject matter. 


43 



If you call on the Civil Service Commission and ask for the 
record of an investigation had at New Orleans during the month 
of September, 1910, In Re: Charges of an “organized system of 
Assessment of Government Employees,” you may get some light 
on the subject, and learn something of “The way they do it in 
Louisiana.” While you are examining this record, you will do 
me a favor by inquiring why this Commission has been unable, 
or unwilling after nine months deliberation, to determine whether 
or not conditions shown (by competent testimony) to exist, are 
in violation of any law. Should you draw this plain answer to a 
plain question, an end to which I have spent considerable energy 
for the past eight months without results, will be reached. 

In this connection, I refer you to Congressman Goodwin, Chair 
man of Committee on Reforms in Civil Service, to whom I lately 
forwarded copies of some correspondence on this subject. From 
these you can gather an idea of the nature of the complaints I 
have lodged—the speedy consideration accorded, and my vain 
efforts to get action. Having patiently waited for nine months 
for a vindication of the law, without results, or apparent prospect 
of a settlement at the hands of the constituted authorities; it is 
my purpose to close the matter, and force the issue as to whether 
or not the questions involved in my charges are of sufficient public 
concern to claim such attention from the Civil Service Com- 
njission, as to result in at least a decision of some kind. The in¬ 
difference of the authorities in this matter invites the conclusion 
that Civil Service as here administered is too indifferent—a coun¬ 
terfeit guarantee. 

The subject is a live one, and should be kept to the fore until 
the question is settled as to which system is to assume mastery— 
“The Spoils,” or “The Merit.” The two cannot co-exist, but the 
former outright is preferable to half enforcement. 

I am at your command in any earnest effort to lay bare to pub¬ 
lic view the true situation. 

Respectfully, 

E. N. CORNAY. 

- 

About a week after my letter to Congresmman Cullop—I re¬ 
ceived the following from the Civil Service Commission in 


44 



answer to letters written [nearly a month previous—this letter 
speaks of the case of the Post-Master I inquired about although— 
I made no such inquiry—and had never made such a mention in 
any of my communications;—but I did inquire about an opinion 
long past due as to the legality of my removal from office— 
which I am to this date waiting for— 


Mr. Emile N. Cornay, 

303 Perrin Building, 

New Orleans, La. 


May 8th, 1911 


Sir: 

The Commission is in receipt of your letter of April 15, 1911, re¬ 
questing that you be informed of the decision in the case of the 
Postmaster and other Federal officials and employees in New 
Orleans, Louisiana, and that the documentary evidence, which 
you filed with the Commission, be returned to you. 

In reply you are advised that the document will be returned to 
you after the case has been decided. 

Receipt is also acknowledged of two letters from you to the 
President dated April 17th and 18, 1911, which were transmitted 
to the Commission from the White House. There is returned 
herewith your clipping from the Directory of the Parish of St. 
Mary, Louisiana, which you desired to be returned to you. 


By direction of the Commission: 

Very respectfully, 

(Signed) John A. Black, 
President. 


Thirty days after my last communication to the authorities— 
no signs of a movement in the case being apparent I felt justified 
in looking in other directions to end a tiresome and very unsatis¬ 
factory situation—Accordingly I forwarded to the Congressman 
H. Garland Durpree the following communication to be handed to 
the Committee on Reform in Civil-Service; and two days later, 
opened discussion of the case through the Press— 


45 



New Orleans, La. May 18th, 1911. 
Hon. Hannibal L. Goodwin, 

Chairman, Committee on Reform in Civil Service, 
Washington, D. C. 

Sir: 

I submit for your consideration and action a matter affecting 
Civil Service, which appears to be a proper subject for inquiry 
by your Committee. 

The attached record, (which explains itself) points to an indif¬ 
ference on the part of the authorities to a serious complaint tan¬ 
tamount to a denial of a hearing, as (for reasons best known to 
them) proceedings in this matter have halted with an investiga¬ 
tion had over eight months ago. The prolonged silence of the 
authorities in this case, contrasted with the speedy decision ren¬ 
dered in the matter of charges lately lodged by employees of the 
Postal Department, at New Orleans; when the head officials were 
exonerated and a dismissal of subordinates making the complaints 
was recommended, on the grounds the charges were frivolous and 
not sustained, invites an unfavorable impression of government 
investigations. 

It appears a trifle odd that a case where the charges, are said to 
be “frivolous and not sustained” involving the dismissal of a 
score of subordinate employees of the Government can be tried 
and adjudicated within three or four weeks, while in another case 
envolving superiors in authority, where the charges are not frivo¬ 
lous and where they are sustained (a conclusion from which there 
can be no escape), no decision can be reached after a lapse of nine 
months. 

While it is true these investigations were had by different de¬ 
partments, they are none the less both Government inquiries, 
and the promptness with which one is dispacthed compared to the 
seeming endless drag of the other does not appeal as a square 
administration of the laws, suggesting, that “circumstances alter 
cases” in matters of this kind; relative to which an inquiry is per¬ 
tinent. The correspondence herewith submitted shows that I 
have made diligent but ineffectual efforts to close this case. The 
record is in the hands of the Commission; it tells its own story. I 
am no longer dealing with questions of charges; I am asking that 


46 


the authorities apply the law to the facts as before them, and 
decide whether or not any penalties are due. The Post-master- 
General has shown us after a deliberation of a few weeks, how 
they deal with ^‘frivolous and unsustained ’’charges—nine 
months should be ample time to hear from ^^serious and sub¬ 
stantiated charges. 

I leave this matter with your committee. 

Respectfully, 

E. N. CORNAY.. 


FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS. 


New Orleans, La., May 20, 1911. 

To THE Editor of the Times-Democrat: 

Your recent editorials, touching Federal investigations have 
the right ring, and are timely discussions of a subject needing the 
attention of the press. Recent investigations indicate some¬ 
thing “out of joint,” both as to the methods of government in¬ 
quiries, as well as the manner of administering laws. 

In connection with the late inquiry in charges lodged by clerks 
of the post office department, the (merits of which I know noth¬ 
ing, and they are immaterial for the purpose of this discussion), 
it is pertinent to inquire: What forces are in action when a 
decision in what is termed a “frivolous case” can be reached in 
short order, while a case which is not frivolous, is allowed an un¬ 
limited period of slumber, from which there seems to be no awak¬ 
ening? 

The prolonged silence of the authorities in the matter of charges 
of gross violation of civil service laws, implicating high Federal 
officials and others guiding the local Republican orgnization, in¬ 
vestigation of which was had nine months ago (when proceedings 
halted for reasons best known to the authorities), contrasted with 
the speedy decision rendered in the matter of the charges of postal 
clerks (where the head officials were exonerated and dismissal from 
the service of the subordinates recommended, on the grounds 
that the charges were “frivolous and not sustained”); creates an 
unfavorable impression of government investigations. 


47 




Since the Postmaster-general (also commander-in-chief of the 
administration’s political forces), has shown us how they deal 
with “frivolous and unsustained charges” after a few weeks de¬ 
liberation, it is now in order to hear something about “serious and 
substantiated charges” hung up for nearly a year. 

I have heretofore avoided public discussion of the course of the 
authorities in this case, preferring an orderly procedure through 
the legitimate channels, but the time has come when a continued 
silence would imply admission that unfounded charges were made, 
which developed on investigation to have been unworthy of of¬ 
ficial notice—a reflection not justified by the facts established, 
publication of which I invite. 

The boast has been freely bandied to the effect that the inves¬ 
tigation referred to would wind up in smoke—amount to 
nothing. 

Perhaps the authors knew whereof they spoke. Be that as it 
may, the indifference of the authorities to a case of flagrant and 
defiant law violations reflects seriously on the efficiency of civil 
service, and such lax administration of laws tends to shake con¬ 
fidence in the sincerity of the government’s guarantee to its em¬ 
ployees of immunity from illegitimate exactions. 

When the agencies responsible for the proper conduct of the 
civil service system balk at applying laws to facts (regardless of 
where the chips fall), signs of decay are patent, and something 
needs an overhauling if a drift toward a discreditable fabric of 
pretences and discounted promises is to be arrested. 

It is time for the press to throw on the searchlight, and agitate 
reforms which will insure action against violators of the laws, 
more effective than “whitewash” investigations (or its equivalent, 
a silent termination). It is time to know whether civil service is 
fact or fiction. 

If an elastic civil service system is necessary to the existence of 
political organizations, and public opinion is prepared to accept 
this version, the bars ought to be lowered to their legitimate 
level, for an unmasked “spoils system” is preferable to a “merit 
system” on the installment plan, at par with cheap jugglery.” 

E. N. CORNAY. 


48 


This breaking of silence—regarding the doings at Washington 
had a tendency to infuse new life into an investigated corpse— 
On receipt of the document directed to the Committee on Re¬ 
form in Civil Service; Congressman Dupre (who was also interested 
in the proposed ousting of a score of clerks in the Post office De¬ 
partment on the charge of ^‘Lese majeste” got busy.—His ac¬ 
tivity resulted in quite a stir—humorously depicted by a special 
correspondent of the Times-Democrat as follows: 


DUPRE TURNS EXPLORER 


Seeks Reports in Cases of New Orleans Officials. 


Trail Is Long and Winds Through Many Departments. 


(Staff Special to the Times-Democrat.) 

Washington, May 27.— As one of the Representatives from 
New Orleans, Garland Dupre is engaged in a search for the re¬ 
port on charges made against Postmaster Behan, former Collector 
McCall and other Federal officials in his district. It is now near¬ 
ly a year since the charges were made and about eight months 
since Civil Service Commissioner Mcllhenny completed his in¬ 
vestigation and made a report. 

It is not exactly a case of “button, button, who’s got the but¬ 
ton.” On the contrary, it rises almost, if not altogether, to the 
dignity of the search for the lost Atlantis or the query as to the 
identity of the gentleman whom the King of France compelled 
to wear an iron mask. Another aspect of the matter suggests 
the thought that Charles Dickens was only a “piker” when he 
imagined that his circumlocution office would ever be considered 
a fine feat of figment construction. Mr. Dupre himself shu'dders 
at the mere thought of being ever called upon to suggest a proper 
characterization of the course the matter has taken, or probably, 
more properly speaking, has been allowed to take. 

The Congressman began about two weeks ago, trying to find 
out what had become of the Mcllhenny report, with a view to 
to finding out what would be the final disposition of it. His 


49 






primary interest is that created by the fact that he is a New Or¬ 
leans Congressman. A secondary interest is indicated by the 
fact that he is a member of the House Committee on Reform of 
the Civil Service and that that committee is making an investiga¬ 
tion as to the condition in the classified civil service. 

First he wrote to the Civil Service Commission. He asked 
what had become of the report and if he might see the papers in 
the case. Back came an answer from Chariman Black saying 
that the papers had been sent to the President on Jan. 11, even 
as was set forth in The Times-Democrat about that time. 

Unsatisfied and undaunted, the Congressman wrote to the 
White House to know what had become of the papers and if he 
might see them. Charles Dewey Hides gave him fair answer 
that the papers had been sent to the Secretary of the Treasury, 
together with a copy of the observations thereon of the Attorney 
General. Mr. Hides was delightfully indefinite. He did not 
say when or why the reference had been made to the Attorney 
General, what that official had said, or why, when his opinion had 
been received, the whole matter was referred to Mr. MacVeagh. 

Wherefore another letter has gone forth from the Dupre office 
asking to be informed as to what Mr. MacVeagh is doing with 
the papers and if he might see them. Expecting that the Sec¬ 
retary of the Treasury will say that he has sent the papers to 
somebody else, possibly to the postoffice department, which Mr. 
Dupre loves and admires above all other branches of the govern¬ 
ment, he has prepared another letter of inquiry as to where the 
papers are and if he might see them so as to lose no time in his 
search. 

What’s he going to do with the papers when he gets them? It 
is so long since the first query was put out that that has become of 
no importance whatever. It is as useless as the query that used 
to be asked concerning the purpose to be served in finding the 
North Pole. Possibly he will contrast the celerity of action 
taken in the case of the nine postoffice clerks with the lack of 
progress made in charges against much higher officials, in which 
violation of a penal statue, forbidding assessments for political 
purposes being levied on persons in the classified service, is set 
forth.” 


50 


The mention of Collector McCall is erroneous—Ti^e reporter 
evidently got this Official confused with other Departments. 


This search (which indicates the authorities entertain no such 
fond attachment for the files of the New Orleans case as to keep 
in close touch with its meanderings); seems to have paved the 
way for further inquiries regarding this ^‘Banquos Ghost” tend¬ 
ing to still further confusion as indicated by the following Special: 

THAT McILHENNY REPORT. 


Mr Dupre May Hear News of it on Return to Capital. 

Staff Special to The Times-Democrat. 

Washington, June 6. —In the language of the children’s set, 
Garland Dupre is getting “warm,” not to say “hot,” in his search 
for the report Civil Service Commissioner Mcllhenny made on 
civil service affairs in the New Orleans Post Office and Custom 
House. When he set out to find that long-missing document, 
he started others. It is these others that bring information in¬ 
dicating that Mr. Dupre is getting close to the query. The 
search has led from the Treasury to the White House, and the 
thought suggests itself that the President’s clerk told only 
a half truth, when he said that the report had been sent to 
the head of the Treasury Department. The suggestion is 
that the report had not only been sent to the Treasury, but it 
had been received there, acted upon and actually returned to the 
President’s office when the letter was written from the White 
House. If it has been returned to the White House, the chances 
are that it is either on its way, or about to be on the wing, with 
eagle swiftness, to the Post Office Department. Those who know 
the routine of the circumlocution office suggest that inasmuch 
as the report deals with assessments said to have been levied up¬ 
on post office clerks, that after the Secretary of the Treasury had 
read the report and made his recommendations thereon, the natu¬ 
ral order of things would be for the President to send it to the 
Postmaster-general for his observance. 


51 




When Mr. Dupre returns to the city his mail may destroy the 
most puzzling secret the executive branch of the government has 
ever known—the consumption of ten months after the comple¬ 
tion of an investigation for that report to get around to the 
men most concerned in it, Postmaster Behan and others. 
Mr. Dupre’s unopened mail may show that the report 
is even now on its way to New Orleans and that a reprimand 
from President Taft may have-been written for those accused of 
forwarding the cause of the Republican party by violating the 
law.” 

The constant dodging and repeated evasions, which have con¬ 
fronted every move toward getting at the bottom of this case— 
the smooth dismissal of every inquiry from the first letter—to the 
latest report; leaves a trail very unlike a straight line. 

The correspondence reproduced evidences such a mixture in 
dates;—that the exact status of the matter, as between the Com¬ 
mission and the President (up to dates covered) is rather indis¬ 
tinct. 

A letter from the Commission dated March 11th., reads—“A 
vast number of other affairs of importance has occupied the at¬ 
tention of the Commission in addition to the attention it has paid 
your own application and earnest appeal.” “The Commission 
therefore hopes that you will not be seriously inconvenienced by 
its longer retaining your letter.” Yet the Commissions reply to 
the request of Congressman Dupre states the papers in the case 
was sent to the President January 11th. Again—on May 8th., 
the Commission acknowledges the receipt of a letter dated April 
15th; also acknowledging receipt of letter to the President of 
same date (which had been trapsmitted to them.) It is not ex¬ 
plained why letters pertaining to that file were sent to the Com¬ 
mission when the files were in the hands of the President,—or 
why the President acknowledged receipt of letters directed to him 
through the Commission one month after date, and without com¬ 
ment as to their contents—But these discrepencies are compara¬ 
tively unimportant. The central fact is laws had been grossly 
violated, and these transgressions have been jealously secreted, 
and permitted to stand unrebuked until a member of Congress— 


52 


opened search for the records, wherein lies a delinquency 
more far reaching than law infractions of themselves; and on the 
whole, surroundings enjoin a dismissal of a worrisome matter of 
the nature of this case by a half-hearted and meagre applica¬ 
tion of the remedy—especially when the influences responsible, 
show no signs of contrition—or inclination of abatement. 

After a torturous delay in meeting a question pressing for set¬ 
tlement, and when the end of postponement had been reached;— 
the President's opinion of this case at last found expression in a 
request for the resignation of heads of two departments (effective 
in seventy days) which opened up a desperate struggle to further 
clog the wheels, and for three weeks longer continued an 
inquest, to make sure that Civil-Service yet survived;—lending 
emphasis to the suspicion of an unholy alliance between politics, 
and public service. The sorrowful spectacle of efforts for a con¬ 
tinued laws delay—furnished by the buffoonery of close advisers 
of the powers; (who are primarily responsible for the plight of 
officials who obeyed not wisely but too well), coupled to its tole¬ 
ration, robs the tardy law enforcement of half its effect. 

On the heels of the President's reported request for the resigna¬ 
tion of the Post-Master and Internal Revenue Collector,—the 
wires were put in motion,—for a last—ditch—fight which would 
indicate no spirit of respect for Civil-Service had been awaken 
after a vigil of Ten Months duration. The stubborn resistance 
to the inevitable on the part of local and foreign referees, the 
pleadings that nothing had been done to warrant such drastic 
measures—are best conveyed by the press reports here repro¬ 
duced which hardly need Comment, as they speak in language too 
plain to be misunderstood or misconstrued. 


53 


GEN. BEHAN WILL RESIGN AS POSTMASTER. 


To Withdraw From Federal Office Because of Findings 
OF Civil Service Commissioner McIlhenny—Will Follow 
Example of Internal Revenue Collector Seyburn— 
Pearl Wight Asked to Select Successors for the 
Two Officials. 


(Staff Special to The Times-Democrat.) 

Washington, June 30. —As soon as Pearl Wight, now at his 
summer home at Lennox, Mass., can come to a decision. New 
Orleans will have, not only a new internal revenue collector, but a 
new postmaster as well. Positive information that Gen. Behan 
is also to resign because of the McIlhenny report and President 
TafCs conclusion thereon was received to-day. 

The national committeemen has been asked to make recom¬ 
mendations for successors to Messrs. Behan and Seyburn, but 
thus far he has not complied. It was learned to-day that he was 
here a few days ago, for a few hours, putting up the best sort of a 
fight with President Taft, Secretary MacVeagh and Postmaster- 
general Hitchcock for the retention of the officials found guilty 
of flouting the classified civil service law in such a manner the 
soft-hearted President could not find a way for their retention in 
the service. He failed because he never had the slightest chance 
of winning. The serious character of the civil service com¬ 
missioner’s findings of fact were communicated to Mr. Wight 
last winter, and he made a fight for the officials at that time. 
President Taft has not been in a hurry to throw them out of office, 
being willing to give them a liberal amount of time to prepare 
themselves for the change made necessary by their disregard of 
the law. 

While the report has never been made public, and may never 
be given out because the officials are to be allowed to resign, it is 
understood that the officials are lucky in that they are to escape 
prosecution for the violations of the law charged against them and 
proved to the satisfaction of the civil service commissioner. 

Neither the officials of the Treasury and Postoffice depart¬ 
ments nor the Louisiana members of Congress have any idea as to 


54 




the men likely to be selected to fill the prospective vacancies 
National Committeeman Wight took none of them into his con¬ 
fidence, nor is he in correspondence with any of them now. He is 
supposed to be in communication with leading Republicans in 
New Orleans. That, however, is based upon the supposition that 
he would not undertake to make his selections without at least 
consulting Frank B. Williams, Collector Seyburn^s brother-in- 
law, although, on account of these charges and the investigations 
of the supposed customs frauds perpetrated in the New Orleans 
Custom House during CollectoT McCall's tenure, the political 
relations between the two men have not been the most cordial 
imaginable. 


(From Times-Democrat.) 

BEHAN HAS HOPES. 

Showed Correspondence With Washington. 


Notwithstanding all the reports and rumors that have been 
spread broadcast, Postmaster W. J. Behan is still on the job and 
has a slight hope of continuing on the job. He has not resigned, 
nor has his resignation been demanded, though he has had pretty 
strong intimations that it was badly wanted. 

General Behan himself is still preserving a sphinxlike silence on 
the whole matter. Up to the present time he still believes it is 
purely a matter between himself and the government, though he 
unburdened himself to the executive committee of the Republican 
Party at a meeting held yesterday afternoon at the St. Charles 
Hotel. 

General Behan presented to the committee all the correspond¬ 
ence that had passed between himself and the president and the 
postmaster general anent the charges in the Mcllhenny report, 
and the committee deliberated long and carefully on the situation, 
and finally came to the conclusion that they would make no 
recommendations for a postmaster until Tuesday. 

The meeting was called for yesterday because of the desire to 
settle the postmastership and the internal revenue collectorship 


55 





matters before Mr. Williams leaves for Europe. These matters 
have already delayed his departure and yesterday’s failure to 
reach any conclusion has caused him to again defer his departure 
until Wednesday. 

Pearl Wight is making hasty trips between his summer home 
in Massachusetts and Washington, and at last accounts was try¬ 
ing to save General Behan’s job for him. Whatever recommen¬ 
dation is made by the committee will be only after Mr. Wight’s 
approval, and he will present the names to the appointive power 
in Washington. 


(From Daily Picayune.) 

BEHAN AND SEYBURN. 

On the arrival of Frank B. Williams from New Orleans to-mor¬ 
row morning it is believed that some action will be taken in ref¬ 
erence to the offices of postmaster at New Orleans and collector 
of internal revenue. It is the opinion of those familiar with the 
trouble, and the wishes of the Republican leaders, that General 
Behan may retain his office, and that Walter G. Kemper, a rela¬ 
tive of Mr. Williams, will succeed Mr. Seyburn as collector. The 
cases are in the hands of President Taft, who has not given out 
any information, and he will not do so until after the Louisiana 
leaders have been heard. 


WILLIAMS AND WIGHT PULL TOGETHER. 


Big Chiefs of La. Republicans Trying to Save Local Fed¬ 
eral Officials. 


Republicans interested in retaining Postmaster W. J. Behan 
and Internal Revenue Collector E. I. Seyburn are on tiptoe wait¬ 
ing for news from Washington. 

State central committee chariman, Frank B. Williams, who is 
en route to Europe, and who left New Orleans Wednesday, will 
stop over in Washington and make a mighty effort to hold his 
brother-in-law, Mr. Seyburn, in office. Friends of Mr. General 
Behan appear to be largely depending on the influence of national 


56 






Republican committeeman Pearl Wight to take care of the gen* 
eral. 

The outcome is still problematical. It is uncertain whether or 
not the two officials booked for a return to private life will be 
successful. 


WILLIAMS PLEADS FOR OFFICIALS 


Head of State Republican Organization Arrives in Wash¬ 
ington TO Urge Retention of Messrs. Behan and Sey- 

BURN. 


(Staff Special to The Times-Democrat.) 

Washington, July 14.—Frank B. Williams, head of the Louisi¬ 
ana Republican State organization, arrived here today and hopes 
to save the officials heads of Postmaster W. J. Behan and Internal 
Revenue Collector Seyburn. The latter had formally tendered 
his resignation, but, as, Mr. Williams said this evening, it has 
not been accepted, and Mr. Williams said he did not know wheth¬ 
er it would be. 

The Louisiana man did not waste any time in getting near 
those who will be able to save the two officials, if anybody can. 
He had lunch with Postmaster-general Hitchcock and called upon 
Mr. MacVeagh. He said this evening that he did not know any¬ 
thing more about the cases of the two men than when he got here. 
Nor does he expect to know anything more when he departs. 
He is going to present their cases in the best light possible, but 
has no hope of any decision before he leaves town. 

The civil service reformers are urging President Taft and the 
Cabinet officers concerned in the New Orleans cases to stand by 
the report of Civil Service Commissioner Mcllhenny; that is, 
they are urging that the officials stand pat on their approval of 
the Mcllhenny recommendations, the chief aim of which is to 
separate Gen. Behan and Mr. Seyburn from the service. 

The Taft administration, it is feared by them, will yield to the 
pressure from Louisiana, because it will need the votes from 
Louisiana. If the Wight-Williams combination should be turned 


57 





down, there is the possibility of a combination with the other 
faction that would result in an uncontested delegation coming 
up from Louisiana, pledged to do the best for the combination 
and at the same time do something to '^get even’^ with the ad¬ 
ministration. That would be horrible. As matters now stand, 
the administration is reasonably certain of having two delegations 
from Louisiana, so that it can choose the one that will do the 
most for it. 


PRESIDENT TO GIVE SEYBURN CHANCE 


Resignation Not Accepted So That Collector May Explain. 


(Special to The Item.) 

Washington, July 11. —It became known authoritatively to¬ 
day that the resignation of Edward I. Seyburn as collector of in¬ 
ternal revenue at New Orleans had not been accepted by the 
president, it had been held in suspense to await a statement of 
Seyburn of his side of the case. 

Friends of the collector have told the president that as a matter 
of common fairness Seyburn should be given a chance to be heard, 
if he wants it. For this reason Mr. Taft has not accepted the 
resignation even though it was tendered after an adverse report 
from the civil service commission. There is little doubt that in 
the end Seyburn will be retired. The resignation is being held 
more as a matter of form than anything else. However, if the 
collector should make an effective defense he might make it em¬ 
barrassing for his enemies who prosecuted the charges against 
him before the commission. 


WILLIAMS TO MAKE FIGHT FOR SEYBURN. 


Republican Executive Committee Chairman Would Save 

Head. 


(July 12th. N. 0. Item.) 

Mr. Frank B. Williams, chairman of the Republican Executive 
Committee, leaves Wednesday night for Europe, by way of Wash- 


58 








ington, where he will do everything in his power to bring about a 
reconsideration of the case of Mr. Edwin I. Seyburn, who was 
requested to resign his position as collector of internal revenue. 

That Mr. Williams will also join forces with Mr. Wight in the 
effort to forestall any unfavorable action, in the case of General 
Behan, is also said to be the program. 


(From New Orleans Item, July 13.) 
SHAKEUP HURTS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


Federal Official Declares McIlhenny and His Report 
Has Damaged G. O. P. 


The results of Civil Service Commissioner John Mcllhenny’s 
report of the political condition of the customhouse and the sub¬ 
sequent unpleasantness amounts to a serious blow at the Republi¬ 
can party, according to one observer, who is a prominent Republi¬ 
can and federal official. 

“Mr. McIlhenny could not have conceived a way to strike the 
Republican party in Louisiana a harder blow than he succeeded 
in giving it with his report,” said this Republican official Thurs¬ 
day. “What, at most, were trivial offenses, if offenses at all, 
against civil service rules, were pronounced to an extent that has 
pretty nearly destroyed the possibility of the maintenance of 
discipline among civil service employees by the heads of depart¬ 
ments. 


(From Daily Picayune.) 
HITCHCOCK HANDLING BEHAN CASE. 


The question of the postmastership seems to be as yet the sole 
topic of conversation in Republican circles. While no official 
announcement was made yesterday, it was learned, however, 
that the resignation of General Behan has been safe in the hands 
of Postmaster General Hitchcock for the past week. The docu- 


59 







rnent, however, is only to be handed President Taft when, in the 
judgment of Mr. Hicthcock, General Behan has lost all chances 
of remaining in office. It was learned from absolutely reliable 
sources that Postmaster Behan, a few days before Collector of In¬ 
ternal Revenues Seyburn had forwarded his resignation to Wash¬ 
ington, had written the postmaster general inclosing his resigna¬ 
tion in order to forestall any move in that direction, should the 
- president demand the retirement of General Behan. 

It was known all along that Postmaster General Hitchcock 
was working in the interest of General Behan with a view of con¬ 
ciliating matters, and just as long as Mr. Hitchcock believes that 
there is a hope of retaining General Behan in office the latter’s 
resignation will be withheld. 


WILLIAMS’ TALKS WITH HITCHCOCK. 


The Republican Chairman Confers With the Postmaster 
General. 


Trying to Hold Behan and Seyburn in Office. 


The Picayune Bureau, 

Post Building, 

Washington, D. C., July 14,1911. 

Frank B. Williams, chairman of the Republican state com¬ 
mittee of Louisiana, arrived from New Orleans this morning. He 
had an interview with Postmaster General Hitchcock this after¬ 
noon, during which he advanced a strong argument why Post¬ 
master Behan and Collector of Internal Revenue Seyburn should 
be permitted to retain their offices, notwithstanding the report of 
Civil Service Commissioner Mcllhenny, which was without any 
recommendation. General Behan has not submitted his reigna- 
tion, and therefore no one has been recommended by the Louisi¬ 
ana Republicans to succeed him. It is believed that President 
Taft will not ask for his resignation, and that there will be no 
occasion to consider another recommendation. 


60 






Mr. Seyburn’s resignation is in the hands of President Taft, 
but he has not accepted it. Mr. Williams will not visit the White 
House, but possibly he will see Secretary MacVeagh to-morrow, 
before leaving for New York. He hopes that no change will be 
made in the office of collector, but if the resignation should be ac¬ 
cepted the appointment of Walter Y. Kemper will be requested, 
and the recommendation of the committee will be placed on file. 
Mr. Williams said this evening that he did not blame Mr. Mcll- 
henny for doing his duty in making an investigation last fall, and 
he believed that the entire matter can be explained amicably. 


HOPE FOR REPRIEVES. 


Fkiends of Resigned Officials Still Fighting For Them. 

(Staff Special to The Times-Democrat.) 

Washington, July 15.—“While there is life there is hope,’’ 
said one of Postmaster Behan’s friends yesterday, meaning that 
until the General is actually out of office there is a chance that 
his official scalp may be saved. The same is true with regard 
to Collector Seyburn. 

State Chairman Williams had lunch again yesterday with 
Postmaster-general Hitchcock, and again talked over the whole 
matter. 

As to the collector and the postmaster, they will have oppor¬ 
tunity without end to write letters to the White House while 
they are getting ready to quit their office, hoping that the latest 
epistle will prove to be the one that will bring about a reversal of 
the verdict. 


BEHAN RESIGNS; EFFECTIVE SEPT. 30 
(Special to the Item.) 

Washington, D. C., July 15.—Postmaster Behan of New Or¬ 
leans has tendered his resignation and it will take effect on Sep¬ 
tember 30. 


61 






Postmaster General Hitchcock conferred with the president 
to-day about the situation in the New Orleans office and imme¬ 
diately afterwards he let it be known that Mr. Behan had sent 
in his resignation and that it had been accepted. 

He has been allowed until the end of the quarter to get out. 
The resignation was voluntarily submitted by the postmaster 
after he had been tipped off that it was wanted, as announced 
in The Item a week ago, the administration decided to give the 
official the opportunity to retire, this opportunity was at once 
embraced. 


The deep concern manifested on the part of individuals, 
who occupy no position which calls for their advice in the enforce¬ 
ment of laws,—coupled to the latitude accorded them in dissect¬ 
ing a question belonging to no one outside of the authorities 
charged with the administration of Civil Service—; is a reflection 
of no less magnitude than the fact, that while officials were dici- 
plined by a removal from office,^—those responsible for the acts 
causing such removals, have escaped the rebuke and repudia¬ 
tion which belongs to agents who violate a trust. 

It is true the President has removed from office two of his 
appointees who disobeyed laws; and defied Civil Service, but 
has this action more than half met the situation? Does the sim¬ 
ple separation of two officials from the Government service, 
whose actions are but incidents of a system; tend to impress a 
higher respect for Civil Service in the future, than that exhibited 
in the past, whent he representative largely responsible for the 
wrongs, received a virtual stamp of approval, by a continuance 
of his functions in the capacity of referee, and dispenser of pa¬ 
tronage. 

If the Postmaster and Internal Revenue Collector trespassed 
laws,—where lies the responsiblity? Did one official assume the 
role of Censor to pass on applications for positions in the Govern¬ 
ment Service on his own motion? Or was he selected to per¬ 
form that part? Did the other official (who found no such in¬ 
structions in his official guide,) send applicants for positions to 
this referee on his own motion, or did some one direct him to do 


62 



so?—the answer is too plain—such uncommon performances 
point too directly to ^‘system” to admit of discussion— 

Then, if these were systematic law violations, who stood at the 
head of the system if not the men who were armed with the pow¬ 
er of patronage? Again, if the representatives of the adminis¬ 
tration were instrumental in causing the violations of laws on the 
part of the President’s appointees,—and if such misdirected in¬ 
fluences have not impaired their standing— (which so appear 
from the fact they continue to enjoy full confidence,) some light 
is needed in the premises in order to reconcile such an attitude 
with what the public expect of the Custodians of Civil Service; 
for as a rule, when agents are continued in authority the presump¬ 
tion is strong their work has been satisfactorily performed. 

As to the specific acts which caused removals from office,— 
they were but the legitimate consequences of a prevailing order— 
(not uncommon) where Public Service and Politics associate. 
Honest Civil Service under the dispensation obtaining in Louisi¬ 
ana is as impossible as for a stream to rise above its source. The 
mockery of Civil Service which found expression in what has been 
recited, is but the legitimate fruits of an order where the Dollar 
mark is the recognized pass-port to Official preferment. What 
other promise could be held out, when one man power takes 
from the hands of the heads of Departments the authority, to 
appoint their subordinates, under a code in conflict with law?— 
what else can be expected when that power (acquired as a recog¬ 
nition of the Dollars turned in the Coffers of a political organiza¬ 
tion), is aimed solely to the end of a sure return of these Dollars, 
ostensibly an individual donation. 

Can it be Mr. Hitchcock, the manager of the Republican Or¬ 
ganization was ignorant of the fact that the individual checks of 
his recognized Leader, of Ten and Twenty Thousand Dollar size, 
were a mere underwriting of the fund expected for the cause? 
If he did not suspect that there was some avenue for reimburse¬ 
ment of these liberal donations,—he evidently had an exaggerated 
idea of the glory of Republican leadership in Louisiana. 

It is a notorious fact that the Republican organization in Louis¬ 
iana (composed mainly of office holders, and devoted largely to 
raising campaign funds, and gathering delegates for National 


63 


Conventions) has been perniciousiy active in matters not in the 
legitimate scope of Party affairs. If Mr. Hitchcock (the recog¬ 
nized leader of the Party was ignorant of that fact, he has not been 
as well posted as one occupying his station should be; and if the 
President has failed to inform himself on that point, it was not 
for the lack of opportunity—as the record made up by the investi¬ 
gation had by the Civil Service Commission, has been at his 
disposal at least since the month of January; to say nothing of 
information imparted through letters on the subject. 

The first step of the gentlemen who have (for the past nine 
years) guided the destinies of the Republican Party in Louisiana, 
after acquiring title to Federal Patronage (the sine-qua-non-for 
the up building of a respectable Party, of which so much has 
been heard, abroad as well as at home) was in a direction in con¬ 
flict with laws, to which even political Parties owe obedience. 
The standing of these men (who are of recognized integrity) would 
preclude the charge of malice; or deliberate intent to conspire to 
break down laws established for the promotion of public service; 
but that fact no more alters conditions resulting from their ideas 
of Party organization, than would an error in administering a 
nostrum alter the consequences. 

It would appear, as over zealous fresh converts, these new lead¬ 
ers lost sight of the broad distinction between the responsibilities 
of public affairs,—and the management of their sugar-planta¬ 
tions and saw-mills; which possibly led to the idea that there was 
nothing wrong in such legitimate bargains as a modest 10% for 
the ‘‘good of the cause,” a matter which in private business, con¬ 
cerns none but the parties to agreement; and on that distinct 
line grew visions of a powerful organization. 

It is a well know fact that rules were promulgated for guidance 
in the distribution of patronage; and the executive committee of 
the organization whose functions were to parcel out offices, 
(after the leader, and referee of the administration indicated his 
choice) looked to the head of each Department for an account 
of his stewardship. It is a notorious fact the first requirements 
for recommendation for appointment to Presidential offices were 
10% of the salary attached to the position, and a surrender to 
the Committee of minor appointments (when practicable) —and 


64 


to such minor appointments, (wherever circumstances were fa¬ 
vorable), a like condition of 10"% was attached; the Chief dis¬ 
penser of favors, being promptly advised (under the rules) of 
all vacancies of any consequence. This chief passed on the eligi¬ 
bility of candidates, (ostensibly with the assistance of his com¬ 
mittee) and these recommendations always prov.ed satisfactory 
to the head of the Department; all of whom seemed to repose 
unlimited confidence in the wise discretion of the “Giver of good 
things;’’ and thus, the system worked without a hitch, or friction 
producing something for “The doubtful Districts of the North” 
which found its way periodically to the Coffers of the National 
Organization in the shape of personal? checks of the chief—to 
the tune of $10,000—per installment, one time as high as $20,000 
—The system was good to those who were good to the system— 
and especially was it good to its Treasurers—which is substan¬ 
tially demonstrated in the fact that this position, by some coin¬ 
cidence unexplainable, invariably proved to be a stepping stone 
to high stations,—no less than four of the ex-treasurers having- 
been honored with Presidential appointments. In the light of 
this history of official, and semi-official estimate of the “Merit 
System” there was nothing astonishing in the expression of a 
prominent official (in reference to the resignations) as quoted by 
the New Orleans Item of July 13th. to the effect “The offences 
is offences at all against Civil Service rules were trivial”—Nor was 
it surprising that the leader of the organization also thought the 
matter so trivial, that he said, after conferring with Mr. Hitchcock 
(as reported by a correspondent of the Picayune July 14th.) 
“He believed the entire matter could be explained amicably.” 
Neither was it far-fetched for an official to make the boast that the 
names of employees'who testified in the investigation had been 
handed the local powers, who would see that they would “walk 
the plank”—in the event of an adverse decision. 

Whether or not the conclusions finally reached were an 
“amicable ending”—the events of the closing hours point at least 
to an affinity between the powers and those responsible for the 
situation, which might in a measure account for a simple case 
becoming so complicated as to require months of study to un¬ 
tangle. 


65 


The attitude of Mr. Hitchcock in this case as indicated by 
Press news)—calls for a reference to another matter not entirely 
disconnected—The following explains itself— 

HOLDS OUT LITTLE HOPE 


Postmaster General Hears Senator Foster. 


Clerks Chose Wrong Time to Make Charges, Is 
Theory. 


(Stalf Special to The Times-Democrat.) 

Washington, July 19.—There is but little hope that Senator 
Foster will be able to procure a mitigation of the harsh sentences 
passed upon the New Orleans post office clerks. He interviewed 
the Postmaster-general to-day, and in doing so he went into a 
hornet’s nest, nearly everybody connected with the Postmaster- 
general’s office is ready to fight about the case. But for the inter¬ 
vention of Senator Foster and other members of the delegation, 
the clerks undoubtedly would have been dismissed. 

Their chief fault lies in not choosing a better time for making 
what now are regarded as frivolous charges against Postmaster 
Behan’s supervisory force. They made them just about the 
time President Ta t and the Postmaster-general were reading 
over the report on Messrs. Behan and Seyburn by Civil Service 
Commissioner Mcllhenny. That report made Messrs. Taft and 
Hitchcock angry. Instead of venting their feelings in full upon 
the commission officials, it seems some of it fell upon the clerks 
who made the faux pas of preferring their charges at the wrong 
time. 

It was learned to-day that one of the clerks suffering a reduc¬ 
tion of S300 in pay, was receiving at the time of his reduction 
only $900 a year. The Postmaster-general, in discussing the 
case to-day, said that in a year he will be promoted to $800. How 
long it will take him to get back to $900 will depend on how long 
it takes those above him to die or resign from the service. 


66 





Senator Foster argued with Postmaster-general Hitchcock that 
a reduction like that is not discipline but vengeance, and not be¬ 
coming in a Cabinet officer unfamiliar with the harrying done by 
the inspectors detailed; and with the bedevilment of the clerks 
by the political fund collectors, who, it is now coming to be gen¬ 
erally understood, have made the New Orleans post office one of 
the most notorious plague spots, from the point of view of a civil 
service reformer, in the whole country. 

The Senator told Mr. Hitchcock that the inspectors on duty at 
New Orleans are now doing more to stir up trouble than they are 
to do away with it. The Postmaster-general seemed surprised 
to learn that inspectors are now carrying on an investigation 
there and he said he would stop it so as to give the office a chance 
to cool off and get down to a healthy normal condition, if such a 
thing is possible. 

The case of the Post Office Clerks referred to related to charges 
(as I am informed) to the general [effect—that employees who 
stood close to the organization enjoyed the benediction of their 
superiors, while those out-side of the breast-works were sub¬ 
jects for discriminations. The hurried investigation of these 
charges it is complained was shifted in other directions—the 
Postal Clerks association being the subject of inquiry to a great 
extent in lieu of the charges, which were skimmed over on the 
grounds that that phase of the matter had already been inves¬ 
tigated by the Civil Service Commission. 

Such, it appears was the offences of the clerks, and this inquiry 
carried with its findings—a penalty—which must (in the light of 
the system here shown to have existed) stand as a blot on Mr. 
Hitchcock’s Official Career.—To discipline defenseless employees 
of the Government, at the cost of privation to the innocent fami¬ 
lies of the victims, for no greater offense than the exercise of the 
right of petition (especially when conditions as well known to the 
Postmaster General as any one else, were such as to lend color) 
reaches further than ‘‘misuse of power”—It smacks of 
a species of abuse of authority, bearing a resemblance too close 
to “Darkest-Russia,” to escape the disapproval of every fair 
minded American. 


67 


SEP IS 


Had a fraction of the diligence exerted to expedite a decision 
in a case alfecting defenseless subordinates, been applied towards 
reaching a conclusion in the case damaging to superiors in au¬ 
thority—it is highly probable there would never have been such 
a case to investigate as “The postal clerks charges’^—and 
there would have been nothing to add to a situation already suf¬ 
ficiently embarrassing; and, to say the least, not reassuring as 
to the effectiveness of Civil Service. 

The fact that it is possible for an employee to be removed from 
office without “Due process’^ and the victim be denied even a 
decision on a complaint;—the fact it is possible for applicants for 
positions in the Public Service, bearing certificates from the Civil 
Service Commission, to be required to report to referees of a 
political organization for an examination which calls for answer¬ 
ing such questions as: 

“Are you a registered Republican? “Are you willing to’’ give 
10% of your salary?” and the fact it is possible for such rapes 
on Civil Service to be treated as trifles, by being countenanced 
to stand for nearly a year without action; impresses something 
more than statutes and regulations are needed,—something more 
than messages to Congress extolling the grandeur of Civil Service, 
before the system is anchored on a solid foundation; and as long 
as such lethargy (the symptoms of something out of a plumb) is 
possible; “The Civil Service Reform League” need not disband 
for the want of a mission; for laws sometime in action, and some¬ 
time asleep, are as serviceable in bonfires as on the statutes. Ham¬ 
pered as it is by forces working counter to its purpose, beset as it 
is on all sides by influences tending to block its course towards 
absolute separation of Public Service from Politics, Civil Service 
needs, to combat such evils, a rigid prop, supplied only through 
the virile force of promptly executed laws;—otherwise, the sys¬ 
tem must sink in the vortex which has swallowed up like institu¬ 
tions pampered by baneful political influences, making in-roads 
while laws sleep. 


68 


♦ 











